Preamble

The House met at half-post Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 11 January 2001.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

EU Sugar Regime

Dr. Lynne Jones: If he will make a statement on the reform of the EU sugar regime. [142335]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The compliments of the season to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House. I shall now move on to the ingredients for the traditional fare.
The present EU sugar regime is unsustainable and reform is long overdue. It requires consumers to pay two and a half times the world price for sugar, and acts as a barrier to imports from third countries other than on specially negotiated conditions.
The Commission has made proposals which would begin the process of reform, and has also proposed opening up access to the European Union market for sugar from the least-developed countries At this week's Agriculture Council, I argued for a coherent and orderly reform of the sugar regime, which would take into account the interests of the EU industry, but also the EU's obligations to the very poorest countries. Negotiations will continue under the Swedish presidency.

Dr. Jones: As my right hon. Friend says, the failure to reform the common agricultural policy on sugar means that consumers and manufacturers, such as Cadbury in my constituency, are paying two to three times world prices for sugar at the same time as we are denying the poorest countries access to our markets. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the EU sugar regime will not prevent the

everything but arms proposal from succeeding and that the reform will not set developing countries against one another?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. At the Council of Ministers, I argued strongly in favour of reforming the sugar regime but, like other Ministers, I drew attention to the everything but arms proposal. It seems to me that the two proposals must be taken in parallel and that market access should be accompanied by reform of the European Union regime.

Mr. Peter Luff: What exactly does the Minister mean by that response? What exactly is he saying in the Council of Ministers about the inclusion of sugar in the everything but arms proposal? All the letters that I have received from the Government suggest that they remain wedded to the inclusion of sugar, which will have severe consequences for British sugar farmers, for the British sugar manufacturing industry and, of course, for the African, Caribbean and Pacific sugar-producing countries.

Mr. Brown: The proposal is intended to provide market access for the poorest countries in the world. The hon. Gentleman overstates the dangers, although I accept that the EU industry perceives them to be real enough. The quantities involved are relatively small and there are safeguards in the proposal. The Commission is the custodian of the safeguards. Irrespective of whether the everything but arms proposal has an impact on the European Union market, the case for reforming the sugar regime is blindingly obvious.
There is nothing new in the proposals. I have with me two pages of quotes from Conservative Ministers arguing for reform. Way back in 1995, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) told the House:
We are pressing for a price reduction of some 12 per cent. in the negotiations.—[Official Report, 23 March 1995; Vol. 257. c. 479.]
I have to say that he did not achieve it.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that throughout the country there is broad support for giving access to the least-developed countries and some of the poorest people in the world, and for not allowing that progress to be held up by the selfish interests of small groups of producers?

Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the two proposals should be taken forward in parallel. We should accord the poorest countries in the world access to European Union markets, but the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is right that it could conceivably impact on the EU's own regime, and it is clear that we should take reform of that regime forward in parallel.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Judging from ministerial responses in a recent European Scrutiny Committee, is the Minister not a little embarrassed that he still cannot say if and when the EBA initiative will begin? Is that not woefully inadequate, given that the first 20 per cent. tariff cut is due on 1 January 2001? Consultation has been almost non-existent and impact assessments will be shown to be worthless.


When will the Government start to stand up for British interests and seek to halt this over-hasty policy, which will cripple the sugar industry of both the United Kingdom and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is dramatically overstating the case. I was standing up for British interests at the Council of Ministers on Tuesday. It is in the clear interests of consumers and taxpayers in this country that we reform the sugar regime, and there is nothing new in that. Back in March 1990, the then Parliamentary Secretary, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), said:
We have never disguised our belief that the price of beet sugar is far too high—[Official Report, 8 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 990.]
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Conservative party has changed its mind? I thought that Conservatives believed in markets.

Farm Diversification

Mr. Bill Michie: What steps the Government are taking to encourage farmers to take up options for farm diversification available under the England rural development programme. [142336]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have publicised the England rural development programme extensively, including writing to all farmers, placing articles and advertisements in the press and attending local farmers meetings. In addition, free planning advice is available to farmers wishing to pursue projects under the rural enterprise scheme; we will publish a free guide to farm diversification over the next few weeks; and the Government are consulting on proposals to provide time-limited rate relief for farmers wishing to diversify into non-farming activities.

Mr. Michie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. While it is welcome that rural communities and farmers are getting help and consideration, there are many rumours that a lot of open space, good farmland and green belt could be used for other purposes, which will close access and, of course, change the whole character of such areas. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that that is not the case and that the claims being made are exaggerated?

Mr. Morley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He makes an important point about the pressure on greenbelt and greenfield land, but many farm buildings and sites lend themselves to a variety of conversions for various businesses and for diversification. We want to help farmers to do that—and, of course, we are not talking about cutting through the planning law. Issues such as vehicular access, noise and smells will all be taken into account by local planning authorities, but we want to make it clear that just because a building is a farm or part of a farm development, it does not mean that it cannot be developed into all sorts of different businesses that are good for farmers and the rural economy.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister acknowledge that the farmer's share of the capital

development necessary for diversification depends on an adequate level of profitability on that farm? Given the present disastrous situation for farm incomes and the modulation of European agricultural payments, is not there a real risk that the good intentions of the plan may be frustrated?

Mr. Morley: It is certainly true that farmers' incomes have been under pressure in recent years. No one denies that, but the measures are designed to help farmers to extend, develop and adapt their own businesses. Many farmers have taken up those opportunities. MAFF is encouraging the creation of demonstration farms so that people can see what can be achieved and how they can diversify their businesses.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of these who farm in the Pennine chain do so in extremely difficult farming conditions, where there are few options to diversify, yet if they are to maintain the potential for tourism and other attractions in that area we want to ensure that those farms maintain the present balance with nature and, therefore, we need to ensure that they can survive economically?

Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend. We provide extensive financial support for upland farming because we recognise that it brings social and environmental benefits to our uplands, and grazing in the uplands is needed as part of environmental management.

Pig Industry

Mr. Tony Baldry: What meetings he has held with pig farmers representatives in the last month to discuss the state of the industry. [142337]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): My ministerial team and I have, between us, held or attended seven meetings involving pig farmers or their representatives since the beginning of November. Principal among the topics discussed have been the pig industry restructuring scheme, which has now received full European Union Commission approval and is open to both outgoers and ongoers, and the recent outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia, where I am pleased to say that the final area movement restrictions on commercial pig operations were lifted earlier this week. Producers will also have been heartened by the ending of the export, ban on live pigs from Norfolk and Suffolk at midnight last night.
I am sure that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to Jim Scudamore, the chief veterinary officer, his staff in the state veterinary service and their administrative colleagues for their sterling efforts in controlling the disease, for representing the national interest so effectively at European Union and wider international level, and for responding so swiftly to the many practical problems that the outbreak created.

Mr. Baldry: I thank the Minister for that statement. However, given the parlous state of the pig industry, will he give the House an undertaking that the funds available for the pig industry restructuring scheme—I think that they come to about £66 million—will be continued, and that if there is any shortfall this year it will be carried


forward or replaced next year? Will he also undertake to find time to introduce a statutory instrument on the pig industry development scheme as speedily as possible? Indeed, if the Government could find more time in the House to introduce the necessary legislation for the pig industry and less time to criminalise field sports, there would be much rejoicing in Banbury-shire and rural England.

Mr. Brown: I will take the part of the question that I agree with and welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the development scheme. I will give him the assurance that he seeks—this is not a party-political matter. We are all trying to do our best to help the industry through what have been difficult times. I have to consider the representations made to me by the Meat and Livestock Commission, but the appropriate regulations will be laid as soon as and if it is proper to do so.
On the moneys, I fought very hard with colleagues in the Government and with the European Union Commission for the outgoers and ongoers scheme. Having got the scheme in place, I want it to work as effectively as possible. The budget is ring-fenced year by year, and uptake will depend on applications under both the ongoers and the outgoers element. It is also important to point out that it is a United Kingdom, not an England only, scheme.

Mr. David Taylor: Together with my right hon. Friend's colleague, Baroness Hayman, I recently visited the midland pig producers unit near Osgathorpe in north-west Leicestershire. Among the issues raised was the impact of the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia and the risks it posed for the east midlands, and Baroness Hayman was impressed by the responsible attitude that was taken. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the National Pig Association has suggested a levy-based industry contribution to the compensation scheme and will he undertake to bring before the House as rapidly as possible the necessary legislation to introduce that scheme?

Mr. Brown: I hope to bring the necessary legislation before the House and to make the appropriate arrangements with Ministers in the devolved authorities—it is a Great Britain matter—as soon as and if it is appropriate to do so. I hope that we can proceed on an all-party basis.
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the industry's response. It has responded with great courage and common sense in the difficult circumstances of the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia.

Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister has been able to help the pig industry by obtaining an 80 per cent. discount on the climate change levy. Will he explain why he has not been able to make the same discount available to the horticulture industry through the introduction of climate change levy farm production agreements?

Mr. Brown: This is slightly off the point, because the question was about the pig industry. However, in the spirit of the season, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, of course, representations were made within Government about the specific circumstances of the horticulture sector.

As he almost certainly knows, I was able to obtain concessions for it, although I accept that they do not go as far as the industry would have liked.

Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the reconstruction scheme that has now been approved, but can the Minister give us an idea of when it might commence? What will be the time scale?

Mr. Brown: Both the outgoers and the ongoers elements are open now, and I have had discussions with Brid Rodgers, the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, about the specific application of the scheme in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that there is particular interest in the scheme there, and the hon. Gentleman and I met pig farmers in his constituency when I visited Northern Ireland some time ago. The urgency of the matter was impressed upon me then.

Mr. James Paice: May I take the Minister back to the restructuring scheme? He said that the funds are ring-fenced year by year. We should bear in mind the fact that the action plan of 30 March allocated £26 million for this year and that the Minister of State told me in an answer this week:
While it may be possible for some payments under
the scheme
to be made in the financial year 2000–01, we expect all payments to be completed in the financial year 2001–02; at least £20 million will be available for this purpose.—[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 134W.]
If that money is ring-fenced year by year, will most of the £26 million that the Minister allocated in March be lost because of the delays in setting up the scheme, or will he carry it forward? On this festive occasion, is he going to be Father Christmas or Scrooge?

Mr. Brown: Neither. It is fair to explain to the House that there was no such scheme under the previous Conservative Government. Having fought so hard for the scheme within Government, it is highly unlikely that I would not want to maximise its impact. However, the hon. Gentleman is on to a good point and I repeat that the budget is ring-fenced year by year. The carry-forward, as the hon. Gentleman knows—or not—is a matter for discussions within Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!] That should not come as a surprise to anyone who has served as a Minister. I am not the sole master of this matter, but I intend to do my very best for the industry. Regrettably, I cannot say more than that.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: That is exactly the point: does the Minister have the power to keep back that money? If he does not, will he ensure that every last available penny in the first tranche of £26 million for the pig industry reconstruction scheme will be available to everyone who can apply in time? The key consideration is that none of the money is lost, because it is precious. The industry is under pressure and it is much needed now.

Mr. Brown: There has been a great deal of interest in both aspects of the scheme—the outgoers and the ongoers. There has been a substantial number of applications and the amount that is spent will depend on how many we receive. I fought very hard within Government for that


package of measures and I want it to work. For those people who have the interests of the industry at heart, it is surely a good idea for them to give me some help and support, instead of making it harder than it already is.

Meat Imports

Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on meat imports into the United Kingdom. [142338]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Between October 1999 and September 2000, the period for which we have the most recent figures, about 1.4 million tonnes of meat were imported into the United Kingdom from third countries and other European Union member states.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that brief statement. Does she recognise that, according to recent press reports, some imports from the continent have been from countries with a history of BSE and that some of the imported cattle are over 30 months old? If that is the case, what discussions does she intend to have with EU Ministers on that matter?

Ms Quin: First, it is important to realise that important decisions have been taken at recent Agriculture Council meetings about strengthening the controls throughout EU countries for meat that goes into the food chain. I welcome that for two reasons: first, because it shows the importance that other EU countries attach to strict controls, and secondly, because it evens the playing field for our producers who have borne BSE-related costs for some time.
However, on food safety I remind the hon. Gentleman—I must stress this—that that is a matter for the Food Standards Agency and we will take its advice on such issues. The hon. Gentleman will know that agency staff recently visited France, for example, and the agency has issued several public statements on these issues. I am keen that its responsibilities for food safety are widely recognised, particularly since the House voted for the agency to undertake those responsibilities.

Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a problem with processed meats in particular, and we can deal with that only if we bolster the number of consumer protection officers in county councils and unitary authorities? She is right to say that the Food Standards Agency has responsibility for these issues, which simply draw attention to the reason why we need an independent agency, particularly when we consider the earlier lamentable performance over BSE. We should consider the yo-yoing of the Conservative party rather than the ho-hoing to which Conservative Members keep referring.

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right to remind us of the agency's role, but the rules on processed products were drawn up by the previous Government. The agency is considering the issue. In European forums, the agency and the Government have been active on labelling so that we can give consumers more information.

Mr. Colin Breed: Is the Minister aware of the problems experienced by many hygiene inspectors in trying to ensure that meat entering the country meets our high standards? They are unable to do so because of the lack of proper labelling, of a traceability scheme, and even of any real Government guidance. What discussions has the Minister had with her ministerial colleagues here and in Europe to try to plug that gap?

Ms Quin: I am certainly not saying that the legislation that we inherited was perfect in that respect—it was not. However, I exonerate this Government from the charge of failing to issue guidelines or to work with the Food Standards Agency in its issuing of guidelines. There has been a lot of contact with local authority officials who have responsibility on the matter, and we have been backing up their efforts at a local level by the action that we have been taking with our colleagues at a European level.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Should not our single objective be to ensure easy and unrestricted access for our beef products to every country in the European Union? Under no circumstances should we follow the hysterical advice given by the Conservative party, which, for anti-European reasons, simply wants to block the import into the United Kingdom of products from France and elsewhere.

Ms Quin: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. We export a lot of meat, such as lamb to France, and farmers throughout the country are keen for us to safeguard that trade by our co-operative approach and action within the European Union. However, there is now much wider recognition of this country's strict controls, and it is good to see that recent decisions made at a European level follow the example of some of those controls.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister recall the answer given in the House five weeks ago by the Agriculture Minister? He said:
This country's public protection measures, which are very powerful, include a ban on selling any beef product derived from animals that are over 30 months.—[Official Report, 16 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 1053.]
Does she recall an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman on 13 April? He said:
The fact is that we do not allow meat products over 30 months to be imported into this country.—[Official Report, 13 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 485.]
A week after he gave that answer, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me saying:
The sale of meat and meat products from cattle over 30 months in this country is banned.
Will the Minister now confirm that none of those statements was true?

Ms Quin: Indeed I will not. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that my right hon. Friend has explained the position regarding the rules that we inherited from the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. Nothing that my right hon. Friend has said has contradicted that legal position.
However, let me in turn congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the inconsistent record of the Opposition Front-Bench team: he managed to contradict himself within 24 hours on this very issue. He was quoted in the Financial Times of 24 November as saying:
If consumers are to have any confidence, the Food Standards Agency must not be seen to be a creature of ministers. Politics is once again intruding on issues of food safety.
Yet the same day he said:
Far from cosmetic checks by the Food Standards Agency, what the British consumer wants is an immediate ban on French beef.

Mr. Yeo: As it happens, that is exactly what the British consumer wants. The public are entitled to believe that statements that are repeated time and again by Ministers in Parliament are accurate. Will the right hon. Lady now admit that food products made from potentially BSE-infected imported over-30-months-old cattle may have been and may still be sold to British consumers? Is not the only reason that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has claimed otherwise in Parliament that the Labour Government are so craven in their attitude toward France and other European countries that they prefer to put British consumers at risk, rather than tell the truth about the dangers of French, Irish or German meat?

Ms Quin: If we followed the hon. Gentleman's example, we would end up isolated in Europe on the issue, instead of having the rest of the European Union on our side. I note that the hon. Gentleman did not deny the quotes attributed to him. He has to be consistent—he cannot have it both ways. He must either approve of the Food Standards Agency, which I understand to be the overwhelming will of the House, or be in favour of party political meddling in food safety issues. We know where we stand: on the side of the independent Food Standards Agency.

Mr. Phil Hope: The point is that my constituents are wondering to whom they should turn for advice. To whom should they listen? Should they listen to the advice of the Conservative agriculture spokesman, who has already contradicted himself, or to the advice of Sir John Krebs, chairman of the independent Food Standards Agency, which produces fully informed scientific analysis, rather than the sort of bigotry we hear from the Conservatives?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Food Standards Agency was set up with those specific responsibilities. Having entrusted it with those responsibilities, we should let it get on with the job that I believe it is already doing most effectively.

BSE

Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the efficacy of testing for evidence of BSE in cattle over 30 months old. [142340]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): There are three approved tests that can be used for testing cattle aged over 30 months. All were evaluated by the EU last year in trials in which known BSE samples and BSE-free samples from New Zealand cattle were tested blind. All three tests could

identify the BSE samples with 100 per cent. accuracy. The BSE samples consisted of brain material from cattle at the clinical stage of disease. We used the prionics test in a survey last year of approximately 4,000 cattle entering the over-30-months scheme.

Mr. Heath: Is it not true that validation is possible only at the clinical stage, as the Minister said, and not when cattle are asymptomatic? Therefore, has not the European Union chosen a rather insufficient tool on which to establish its entire BSE strategy in the coming year? Does not processed meat derived from over-30-months-old cattle continue to be imported into this country? Do not serious questions now need to be asked about that policy and the future of the EU's strategy to deal with a BSE crisis developing in continental Europe?

Ms Quin: First, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point when he says that the tests are 100 per cent. accurate only at the clinical stage of BSE. However, he would not be right to say that the whole anti-BSE strategy is based on those tests, because the EU at recent meetings has also made important decisions regarding the elimination of meat and bonemeal from animal feed, which is important in terms of safety, consumer confidence and making a more even playing field in the EU for our producers, who have not been allowed to access such meat and bonemeal for a number of years.
It is important to examine BSE measures in total. I have explained what legislation on processed food provides. None the less, the Food Standards Agency is rightly considering the issue in terms of controls. As for processed products, the signs that we have from manufacturers and retailers are that they use meat that has been deemed safe for human consumption—in other words, not over-30-months beef.

Angela Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is partly because of the Conservative party's actions over BSE that the Food Standards Agency has been warmly welcomed by many people throughout the country and by the House? Part of the reason for the crisis was that decision making came behind scientific evidence, and that that evidence was not taken into account when decisions were made. For that reason, all scientific information should be made available. The public have lost confidence because of the Conservative party's actions.

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right to raise these matters.

Mr. Eric Martlew: The Tories are laughing.

Ms Quin: I cannot understand why any amusement should be caused on the Opposition Front Bench in respect of such a serious point. We need to learn lessons from what happened in the past. Obviously hon. Members on both sides of the House are studying the Phillips report. We believe that by establishing a separate food safety authority we have already done a great deal to tackle some of the problems that have been identified. We believe that the distinction between food safety issues and food production issues is an important one to safeguard for the future.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The House will be aware of the rigours of the regime that has been imposed on the beef industry to ensure that British beef is perfectly safe. Will the Minister tell the House why it has been impossible to answer the question that I first tabled on 15 November? I asked what powers Ministers have
to regulate the safety of beef imported into the United Kingdom from France.
That question was not answered before Parliament prorogued last month, and I had to table it again on 13 December. Earlier this week I received a holding reply that reads:
I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
That seems to indicate that the Government have no powers to regulate the importation of meat from France. If they do—I see the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nodding—why has it taken two months to tell me what these powers are?

Ms Quin: I think that my right hon. Friend was shaking his head, not nodding. I am not familiar with the specific question that the hon. Gentleman has asked. He did not tell me in advance that he was going to raise the matter. It may be that he has tabled the question to the wrong Department and that it is basically a question for the Food Standards Agency. There is still a great deal of confusion—sometimes I believe that it is deliberate confusion—and Members try to get MAFF Ministers to pronounce on issues that are not within our remit. However, I undertake to look into the reply to the hon. Gentleman and to let him know the outcome as quickly as possible.

Floods (East Sussex)

Mr. Norman Baker: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the recent floods on the farming community in East Sussex. [142341]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I know that East Sussex, like a number of areas, has experienced exceptional flooding over recent weeks. Those affected by these extreme circumstances have my full sympathy, as the hon. Gentleman knows, given the debates that we have had on the issue.
Following the autumn floods, the Government immediately made available a further £51 million to accelerate river flood defence works. This is on top of the extra £30 million announced in the summer spending review. Moreover, we are examining with the farming organisations the scope for changes in national and EU scheme rules which would help farmers affected by flooding. My colleague received a positive response at this week's Agriculture Council to just such a request.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that some farmland at Iford in my constituency has been continuously flooded since 12 October, and remains flooded to this day? What is worse, the farmers affected have to pay a drainage rate for the so-called services of a useless 40-year-old Environment Agency pump at Rodmell which is not doing its job. Is he aware that grassland is being killed off, with all the implications that that has for livestock units on those farms? Notwithstanding the steps that he is taking,

which I welcome for the future, what practical steps can he offer my farmers now to help them out of the present situation?

Mr. Morley: These are extreme conditions—we have had the wettest autumn for 230 years. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that some farmland has been flooded for long periods, and in some cases has been repeatedly flooded because of changes in the rivers. We are examining the way in which the regulations laid down by the European Union work, particularly in relation to area payments for arable crops. We are trying to make sure that there is maximum flexibility in the application of those regulations, to assist farmers in the present circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been discussing these matters with the farmers organisations to see whether we can do anything else to provide support.

Energy Crops

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What steps he is taking to encourage farmers to grow energy crops. [142342]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We launched the energy crops scheme on 3 October with a £30 million budget to encourage planting of short-rotation coppice and miscanthus, and to encourage the formation of producer groups in this sector. The Prime Minister recently announced a further £50 million of support for renewable energy, including from biomass. In addition, we are pursuing a promotional strategy including industry events, codes of practice and a dedicated website.

Mr. Thomas: As someone who recently declared a visit to Denmark to study wind power—a very different industry from energy crops, but with some similar problems—may I urge my right hon. Friend to urge our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look kindly on energy crops, and to offer additional support, beyond what she announced in the rural development plan, with a more favourable tax regime for biofuels?

Ms Quin: I welcome the interest that my hon. Friend has taken and the visit that he mentioned. In the pre-Budget report, the Chancellor issued his green challenge to industry to consider different ways of promoting renewable energies and the use of renewable materials. I welcome that and hope that it will lead to a great deal of worthwhile work in the alternative energy sector.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Let me put the question asked by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) a little more bluntly. As biofuels derive from energy crops, and as the Government have tried to excuse a huge hike of 34 per cent. in petrol duties by saying that it was for environmental reasons, is there not an inescapable duty on the Government significantly to reduce the tax on biofuels, not least because they produce fewer carbon emissions?

Ms Quin: I mentioned the initiative that the Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report. I do not suppose that


the hon. Gentleman expects me to make tax announcements in Agriculture Question Time. [HON MEMBERS: "Go on."] Even though Christmas is approaching, I cannot be tempted to that extent. Departments are working together closely. The Prime Minister's initiative, which I announced, involves a considerable sum of money. The Treasury, MAFF and the Department of Trade and Industry are working closely together in this sector. MAFF is doing an enormous amount in that regard, compared with when the previous Government were in office.

Mr. Eric Martlew: In addition to supporting the biofuel system, does my right hon. Friend support the building of power plants where the crops are grown? We should bring jobs into rural areas. There is a proposal to build a massive plant on the outskirts of my constituency, which will bring the fuel from a 100-mile radius and bring hundreds of heavy goods vehicles into my constituency. Will not that defeat the object of environmental improvement? The power plants should be in the area where the crops are grown.

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Without doubt, it is important to look at the travel and transport implications of the strategy. I am glad that Project Arbre is being commissioned in Yorkshire and that a number of Yorkshire farmers are growing short-rotation coppice to supply that power station. There are good examples that we should follow, but we should certainly be aware of the transport and overall cost implications of what we are doing in that sector.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

CPS

Mr. David Kidney: If he will make a statement on progress with his plans to equip the Crown Prosecution Service with modern computer systems. [142366]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): I know that my hon. Friend has long taken an interest in this matter, and I am pleased to report that the first step of the programme to equip the CPS with modern computer systems began its national roll-out to the 42 areas in November, and will be completed within the next 12 months. The Connect 42 project provides basic IT tools and enables staff to be connected to each other and the police. The project also successfully gained accreditation to the Government secure intranet, which will enable the CPS to join up electronically with its criminal justice partners.
The second step, the Compass project, will use the Connect 42 infrastructure to provide a case management system.

Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his answer, and congratulate him on responding positively to my prompting. Will he confirm that a common ambition of the CPS, the police and the courts is to achieve modern and compatible computer systems so that

they can speed up the processing of court cases? Does he believe that all three agencies will achieve that common ambition at about the same time—or does he think that somebody will be first and somebody else last?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly, the three agencies are working together, and I confirm that things are moving forward quickly. It is not simply a matter of greater efficiency in the operation of the agencies, but a question of individual prosecutors in the CPS being able to access databases, Archbold and similar sources so that they can do their job better. The police are moving forward as well and, as I said, the programme will be in operation by next November. In my hon. Friend's own area, it will be in operation by next June, I believe.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: But will the new computer system that the Solicitor-General is rolling out help in cases such as that in the Royal Courts of Justice last week? There was an attempt to get bail for Stephen Downing, only for the CPS barrister to get up and say that he had not heard about the case until 4.30 pm the day before and was leaving the country to go on holiday that day. Bail was therefore refused. Will the new system help to stop that kind of thing?

The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in this matter, and has had a meeting with my right hon. and noble Friend the Attorney-General. The point was made that the CPS had behaved in a proper way and that the problem seemed to be with the court. Certainly, modern IT systems can help the CPS and the courts to operate more efficiently. There is no doubt that that was an unfortunate case, but things ought to get better.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will understand the extreme anger of my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Willis who were not informed by the CPS of the date of an appeal hearing here in London against the sentence of a driver who caused the death of their son Gareth by dangerous driving. Will my hon. and learned Friend express the feeling that everyone who is waiting for appeal hearing dates will be informed in future and not left in the dark?

The Solicitor-General: I am not aware of the particular case raised by my hon. Friend. However, as a general principle, victims and their relatives ought to be informed of these matters. It is most unfortunate that in this case that did not happen. We have said that victims ought to be brought more centre stage in the criminal justice process and that their views ought to be taken into account. In the case of death by dangerous driving, it is especially important that their interests are taken into account.

Mr. John Burnett: Earlier this year, a survey on the Crown Prosecution Service was published. It disclosed that morale was at rock bottom. Since then, additional funding has been made available to the CPS. Will the Solicitor-General conduct or cause to be conducted another independent survey into the CPS? If he does so, when will the results be published?

The Solicitor-General: As I have confessed to the House previously, the survey showed that there was a


problem of morale. I have also explained that, historically, the CPS was underfunded by the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that we are investing much more money in the CPS. This year, we are investing another £15.8 million and there will be an 8 per cent. real-terms increase over the next three years—I emphasise that that is a real-terms increase and will not occur merely in money terms. In addition, a pot of money containing more than £500 million is available to the various criminal justice agencies. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor have said that the CPS claim on that pot of money is a priority. Decisions will soon be made about the matter. Inasmuch as money and resources are the problem, we are remedying the situation that we inherited from the previous Government.

Human Rights

Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the impact of the implementation of the human rights convention on criminal prosecutions. [142368]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): As expected, challenges based on the convention are being heard by the courts in criminal cases. Prosecutors are well trained and have been well prepared for those challenges. We have also established a system to identify appeal cases that have such wide implications for criminal justice that they should be recommended for fast tracking to an earlier ruling from the higher courts. Our experience in the first three months is that we have not seen an explosion of cases or chaos in the courts.

Miss McIntosh: Is it not a source of embarrassment to the Solicitor-General and the Government that defendants in criminal cases are now pleading a right to silence under the European convention on human rights, especially in road traffic cases? Is not their embarrassment compounded by the civil courts' recent decision to rule that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot be judge and jury in planning policy decisions and that that right will be withdrawn? Will the Government accept that the implications of introducing the European convention on human rights into UK law are far beyond the realms of anything that they imagined in terms of possible interference with this country's justice system?

The Solicitor-General: I am not embarrassed at all. The hon. Lady will know that recently, in the Privy Council, the court said that the right not to incriminate oneself was not absolute. The so-called speed camera case—it was called that even though it had nothing to do with speed cameras—clearly established that the devices were effective. The court said that the matter is one of balancing rights. In the leading judgment, Lord Steyn said that one has to take into account the rights of victims and others, in addition to the rights of defendants.
The hon. Lady also spoke about the planning cases. Yes, the divisional court held that the provisions were incompatible. We are appealing the case and the matter is sub judice. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are not

interested in human rights, as is demonstrated by their interventions. We have said that it is a matter of changing culture.

Mr. David Taylor: Can the Solicitor-General reassure the House that the courts will have the resources and powers to deal with appeals more speedily than they are often dealt with in alternative environments?

The Solicitor-General: It is the case that the fast-tracking procedure has worked effectively with a number of important challenges on human rights grounds to particular criminal provisions. The criminal division of the Court of Appeal has already heard appeals and we are expecting a judgment either today or tomorrow on a number of important challenges, one of which concerns the bail provisions.
I return to the point that this is not simply a matter of examining the decisions of the courts. The Human Rights Act 1998 will be judged a success not in terms of cases in the courts, but in terms of changing the culture of public authorities ranging from the largest Departments to public bodies operating in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Is not the greatest attack on human rights the Government's proposal to introduce, for a third time, a discredited measure to restrict the right to jury trial? We all know that the Solicitor-General is a man of huge influence in the Government. Why does he not use that influence to persuade them to drop the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: Well, we have been around that particular track a number of times. The point is that the royal commission appointed by the previous Government—and the Narey inquiry—recommended that particular change and it is sensible that judicial resources be matched to the nature of the case. Trivial or small cases ought not to have the full weight of the Crown court, for example, directed to them.
However, we halve introduced a number of protections. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we introduced a right of appeal so that defendants unhappy with the decision of the magistrates court that a matter should remain in that court can appeal to a Crown court judge. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, of course, conducted a campaign against the legislation, but we say that it is an element of modernising the criminal justice system, which, unfortunately, was left in bad shape by the previous Government.

CPS

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: What assessment he has made of the morale of the Crown Prosecution Service. [142369]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): On my frequent visits to CPS offices around the country, I have been impressed by the commitment and professionalism of staff. Earlier this year, the CPS received a clear indication of the views of staff as a result of the staff attitude survey. Ccnsequently, the CPS board has agreed to a number of measures to improve morale—for


example, enhancing the support systems for keeping staff better informed of changes. Long-term planning has also been addressed through the staff attitude survey and stress audit steering group. I return to the point that, importantly, the CPS has been encouraged by additional funding, which is to be made available. That will greatly improve morale and enable staff to do a better job.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank the Solicitor-General for his response, which shows that historic underfunding is at least in part responsible for poor morale. Is he convinced that the new resources will be sufficient to address the problem and thereby improve morale?

The Solicitor-General: I certainly am, but it will be hard work, especially in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend. London faces particular difficulties, but the resources will be provided, new recruitment will start in January and I am confident that the combination of resources and particular measures taken in the CPS will greatly improve efficiency.

Mr. John Bercow: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the best route to higher morale in the CPS would be for the service to deliver and to know that it is delivering an improved service to the public? To that end, can he tell the House what specific

targets for better service delivery have been set, the time scale in which they are expected to be achieved and how the service is doing?

Mr. Peter Luff: Briefly.

The Solicitor-General: Briefly, there are a number of targets—for example, for the turnaround of cases—and they are constantly monitored by the inspectorate. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) knows, we have put the inspectorate on a statutory basis. It is better resourced, does much more work and constantly reports on the operation of areas.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Solicitor-General think that CPS morale would be improved or otherwise if it were to deal with the cases of about eight members of the Equitable Life board who have scuttled away like rats leaving a sinking ship? Should the matter be investigated by the CPS?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. If it were a responsibility of anyone under my aegis, it would be the Serious Fraud Office, but I am not saying that it has gone that far. I am sure that my hon. Friends in the Treasury are considering the matter very closely.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the week after the House returns from the Christmas recess?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for the first week after the Christmas recess is as follows:
MONDAY 8 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Homes Bill.
Motion relating to the Electoral Commission.
TUESDAY 9 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill.
THURSDAY 11 JANUARY—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day—Half-Day—Second Part]. There will be a debate on the Sixth Report from the Science and Technology Committee on Cancer Research: A Fresh Look, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration at 4 o'clock.
FRIDAY 12 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 15 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Capital Allowances Bill.
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 17 January, there will be a debate relating to sport in European Standing Committee C.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall during January 2001 will be as follows:
THURSDAY 11 JANUARY—Debate on energy and other non-food crops.
THURSDAY 18 JANUARY—Debate on the Fifth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee on the Greening Government initiative.
THURSDAY 25 JANUARY—Debate on Meeting the Basic Skills Challenge.
[Thursday 11 January:
Relevant documents: A Fresh Look (HC 332) and the Government's response thereto (Cmnd 4928]

Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House. Following the Second Reading and programme motion on the Hunting Bill yesterday, there will be just one day of Committee on the Floor of the House for consideration of the Bill. Is she able to tell us the date on which that will take place? Many Members will want to clear their diaries so that they can participate in that important debate.
May we have a debate in Government time early in the new year on the intelligence services? That would be most welcome, not least to members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Will the right hon. Lady request a statement in the new year from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the guidance given by the Government, which might have influenced the method of operation of the board of Equitable Life? Given that the Treasury's insurance directorate suspended that guidance two days after the House of Lords judgment on Equitable Life, the House will want to question the Chancellor, not least because there might have been a duty of care that could result in compensation to policyholders.
In conclusion, I wish the Leader of the House, you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. Members a happy Christmas and, I hope, an interesting new year.

Mrs. Beckett: I seem to remember that "may you live in interesting times" is a Chinese curse. I thank the hon. Lady for her good wishes, and return them to her, to all hon. Members from every party, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the staff of the House.
I cannot tell the hon. Lady when the day on the Floor of the House for consideration of the Hunting Bill is likely to be, but we shall try to give Members as much notice as we can. I take her point.
I also take note of her request for a debate on the intelligence services, and we shall undertake to discuss that through the usual channels.
Guidance that might have influenced Equitable Life is primarily a matter for the Financial Services Authority, particularly at this stage. It is my understanding that the authority has been asked to examine the matter and report. As that information comes together, the House will no doubt have opportunities to raise the matter in different ways.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is it possible to have a debate on international affairs in the first or second week after the recess, especially about the serious situation in the middle east in its widest sense? That includes the Palestine-Israel conflict, the serious problems in Turkey and the problems between Turkey and its neighbours because of the damming of major rivers, which is resulting in water shortages in neighbouring countries? Does my, right hon. Friend accept that the problems in the middle east could lead to a wider escalation of the conflict, and that it would be useful if the House had an opportunity to discuss them?

Mrs. Beckett: As ever, pressure on time for debates on the Floor of the House will be fairly tight early in the new year, because the Government will want to make progress with legislation. Members have already expressed wishes to discuss matters with which it has not been possible to deal before the Christmas recess. However, I note my hon. Friend's request. As he probably knows, questions to the Foreign Secretary will take place on 23 January; and the subject that he has raised is also particularly suitable for debate in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Tom Brake: Will the Leader of the House make time available at the earliest opportunity for debate on a subject that is of great concern to Londoners—the future of the Government's part-privatisation proposals for London Underground? If the public-private partnership is to be ditched, Parliament would like to discuss that.
Will the right hon. Lady also provide time for a debate on the fiasco that has been the selection process for the national lottery? Such a debate would give the Government an opportunity to explain why they have chosen to abandon their manifesto pledge of a not-for-profit lottery.

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman will know, negotiations and discussions on the future of London Underground are continuing, and the Government will be seeking the best-value approach. As far as I am aware there is nothing to report so far, but no doubt the matter will come to the House in a variety of ways in the future.
I do not immediately see a logical thread linking the national lottery with London Underground, but never mind. We said in our manifesto that the Government would seek to identify a not-for-profit provider, and it is clear that a study has been undertaken. It is equally clear that the not-for-profit bidder has not yet been able to satisfy those whose purpose is to judge the bidder's case.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deferred voting system that we have used for the past two weeks has been a great success? Its operation has been straightforward, and it has produced clear-cut results. It is a very simple system, which I am sure appeals to Members on both sides of the House. However, does not the fact that only a handful of Members have voted against some motions suggest that the House's time has been abused in the past by small numbers of mavericks who have forced unnecessary votes in the early hours?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that the deferred voting system is a source of disagreement in various parts of the House, but I agree that it has already proved its worth. On the second of the two occasions on which we have used it, voting could have taken three hours on the Floor of the House, without a minute of debate.
All Members are well aware that many issues on which votes could take place are not contentious across the House. As my hon. Friend says, on a number of such issues only a handful of Members wish to express a view. I think the House will, in time, accept that, while it is of course right for Members to have an opportunity to debate issues, it is not practical to keep tens, if not hundreds, of others hanging around just to exploit the use of time.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Last week, the Leader of the House said in answer to a question from me that there were no present ambiguities in the European defence imbroglio. Was that a subjective statement on her part, or an objective statement on behalf of the Government?

Mrs. Beckett: I think that most of my statements, and indeed most statements made in the House, are subjective. I am aware that there are those who claim to be objective human beings, but I cannot say I have ever met one.

Mr. Syd Rapson: Will there be a chance to debate today's award of a contract to BAE Systems to build type 45 destroyers? We need a debate because it seems that Vosper Thornycroft has been excluded from participating in the contract, which comes

as serious news for Southampton and Portsmouth. We would like to be able to debate the matter sensibly in the House in the near future.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I am not aware of the particular arrangements that he is describing. I also understand his wish on behalf of his constituents—no doubt other hon. Members will join him—to have the issue aired, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a debate on the issue on the Floor of the House. However, the far greater opportunities available in Westminster Hall may be attractive to him. Furthermore—depending, of course, on Mr. Speaker's view—my hon. Friend might find an opportunity to raise the issue in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, on Tuesday.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I introduce an unseasonal note? Could the Foreign Secretary be asked, over Christmas and new year, to prepare to come to the House to make a statement on the case of the British citizen, Krishna Maharaj, who was sentenced to death 13 years ago, on a seven to five verdict, and whose appeal has been turned down by the Florida supreme court? The Foreign Secretary will have received a letter from Clive Stafford-Smith, of the Justice Centre, who says that Krishna Maharaj is the most likely of the 300 cases taken up by the centre to be innocent. It is not an issue that can be debated now, as I cannot apply for an urgent debate. However, the work is urgent.
The alternatives are to ask the Florida supreme court to waive the death penalty, repatriation or to allow a 62-year-old man to go through another 13 years of appeals at the federal level. As the trial judge was taken away in shackles after being accused of taking bribes in another case, there is significant doubt not only about the process, but about Krishna Maharaj's guilt.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, and it clearly is a case of some concern. I have no doubt that he has already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who, I am sure, will take the matter very seriously. However, I do not feel that it would be right, at this moment—when my right hon. Friend might only just have received the hon. Gentleman's letter—to suggest that he make a statement to the House on the case. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find other ways of raising the issue.

Angela Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 61, which deals with working on Christmas day? It states:
[That this House cherishes Christmas Day as a special day, particularly for families and children, and welcomes the campaign by USDAW, the shopworkers' union, on behalf of the 2.6 million shopworkers of United Kingdom; regrets that many shops remain open on Christmas Day because employers put undue pressure on shop workers to abandon their family responsibilities on this important religious and public holiday; notes that the vast majority of shop workers are parents who should be able to spend Christmas with their children; notes that current law offers no protection to such workers when Christmas Day does not fall on a Sunday; further notes that Christmas is an extremely busy and stressful period for shop workers


and believes that they deserve at least one day off; and calls on the Government to protect shopworkers on Christmas Day.]
May I also draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the petition introduced earlier this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), and the petition that I shall introduce later today? Is she aware that many people working in shops in Britain have no legal protection against having to work on Christmas day unless it falls on a Sunday? Is it not time that we had a debate in Government time on the issue? We have a whole year before next Christmas to ensure that people are not forced to work on Christmas day and that they can spend time with their families.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand, of course, the concerns expressed both by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who, as she said, has tabled the early-day motion. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand those concerns and might wish to air the issue. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in Government time. May I, once again, recommend to her the attractions of Westminster Hall?

Sir Sydney Chapman: The right hon. Lady will recall my raising, last week, the High Court decision on the planning powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I understand that the Government have appealed against the decision, so there the matter must rest for the time being. However, I believe that the issue is part of a wider problem. Will the Leader of the House find time reasonably quickly in the new year to have a debate in the House on the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998, which certainly seems to have the effect of requiring the courts to move in mysterious ways?

Mrs. Beckett: From memory—I hope that the House will bear with me, because I am speaking only from memory—I did not think that the decision had very much to do with the Human Rights Act. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: as I suspected last week, the Government have decided to appeal, which means that it is a matter for the courts. As things settle down and time passes, it is likely that fewer stories will be linked to the Human Rights Act when there is only a tenuous or disputed connection.
I well remember hearing a report the other day—I do not recall the precise case—in which it was claimed that there was a dispute with the Human Rights Act. I heard a very cross interviewer continuing to ask the interviewee, "Isn't this because it has fallen foul of the Human Rights Act", to which the answer was, "No." When things settle down and there is a little less hysteria about the Act, we will know better where we stand.

Mr. Martin Salter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of Labour Members would like to debate the fact that the facilities of the House of Commons are being used to host gatherings of a right-wing grouping that publishes racist and anti-semitic material in its magazine, "Right Now"? Is she also aware that speakers at the meetings have included the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for

Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and that regular attenders include self-confessed racists and former National Front activists?
In the absence of any attempt to cleanse the Conservative party of racism, what procedural advice can my right hon. Friend offer hon. Members who do not believe that racism should be given house room in this, the mother of Parliaments?

Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend has identified, nor of the organisation to which he refers and which he describes. However, I can tell him that any hon. Member who comes across evidence indicating a misuse of the House's facilities should convey that information to the House authorities. They will then look into the matter.

Sir Robert Smith: The Leader of the House will know that fishing communities around the United Kingdom face a winter of crisis and a very depressing time following the recent Fisheries Council meeting. Pursuant to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which appears at column 809 of Hansard for 14 December, is she any closer to fixing a date for the promised fisheries debate? In particular, does she recognise that it is urgent that she find time for that debate, so that the House can have an input to Ministers before the cod recovery programme is debated in Europe on 18 January?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I had not forgotten what I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed from the business that I announced earlier, we have not yet identified a suitable opportunity for that debate, but I am mindful of the wish that it be held. Indeed, that was part of what I had in mind when I told my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) a few moments ago that, for perfectly reasonable reasons, there is a good deal of pressure on Government time in the new year. I have not forgotten the commitment that was made, and we are looking for ways to honour it.

Mr. Phil Hope: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 101, dealing with the payment of fees by volunteers to the Criminal Records Bureau? It states:
[That this House welcomes the decision of the Scottish Parliament that criminal record checks for volunteers working with children in Scotland will be free; notes with regret that volunteers in England and Wales will still be required to pay £10 for identical checks to be made with the Criminal Records Bureau in the coming year; and urges the Government to emulate the excellent example of the Scottish Parliament.]
Will she arrange for a debate on this issue in the Chamber? Many voluntary and children's organisations fully support measures to protect children, which require that adults with unsupervised access to children must undergo a criminal records check. However, that costs money, and organisations in the voluntary sector are concerned about the impact of those costs on the volunteers whom they deploy. We need a debate on this matter to see whether some flexibility can be found in



the regime, so that voluntary organisations are not unduly disadvantaged and so that volunteers are not put off from taking part in work with children in this country?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these issues, and that he chairs the all-party group dealing with voluntary organisations. I am aware, too, of the great interest that exists across the House in the matter. My hon. Friend will know that no announcement has yet been made about the exact arrangements involved. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but many opportunities are open to hon. Members to keep up pressure on the Government until the relevant decisions are announced.

Mr. Michael Jack: The Leader of the House has nominated the Second Reading of the Capital Allowances Bill for 15 January. Can she confirm that that is the first Bill to emerge from the tax law rewrite exercise? Will she ensure that, on Second Reading, Ministers couch their remarks in such a way that they touch on the more general work of the Joint Committee and on the wider question of tax simplification? Will she describe what further stages the Bill will go through after Second Reading?

Mrs. Beckett: First, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is right: the Bill is the first fruit of the tax law rewrite project, which I believe he was instrumental in initiating when he was a Treasury Minister. I am aware, too, that it is part of an on-going project of simplification, and that there has been pressure from hon. Members of all parties to make progress on these issues.
I cannot at the moment give the right hon. Gentleman any further information about how the Bill will proceed after Second Reading, or at what pace, but no doubt he will be able to seek that information through the usual channels.

Mr. Edward Leigh: With regard to future programming and votes on the Hunting Bill, did the right hon. Lady notice that something quite interesting happened last night? The West Lothian question was a dog that did not bark in the night—or rather, it just squeaked. Only six of her colleagues from Scotland voted on Second Reading last night. Therefore, most Scottish Members have taken the very correct attitude that they should not vote on matters that affect only England. To do so would be as insensitive as crashing around a neighbour's house and taking down the pictures without letting that person into one's own house.
The right hon. Lady knows how much I admire her. Will she now put her name into the history books and proclaim the Beckett convention—that Scottish Members should not generally vote on matters that solely concern England?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I am afraid that I will not. As for the West Lothian question not being a dog that barked, I should have thought that baying was a more appropriate term on this occasion.
I am aware of the argument put by Conservative Members, and have long believed that they have not fully thought it through. After all, it is not at all clear what

their candidates in Scotland and Wales will say at the next election. Perhaps an appropriate slogan would be, "Vote for me and I will do half the job that everyone else at Westminster is doing."
As the hon. Gentleman will know, during the quite long periods in which the Conservative party was in favour of devolution, it took the view that there should not be two different classes of Member of Parliament at Westminster. That remains the view of this Government. He will also know that in the long periods in which there was devolved government at Stormont, the previous Government relied quite heavily on the votes of Northern Ireland Members.

Mr. Graham Brady: The right hon. Lady will be aware, following press reports at the weekend, if not before, that a ministerial group has been set up informally to examine why 100,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in the past year and why the unemployment rate is rising in the north-east, the north-west and the east and west midlands. Clearly, the Government have some political concern because unemployment is going up in areas that are more heavily represented by Labour Members. As a ministerial group has been established, may we have a statement from a member of the group to explain which of the Government's policies the group believes is responsible for the increase in manufacturing unemployment?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that the whole House is concerned about unemployment, particularly in manufacturing. It is perfectly understandable. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman identifies only the concerns about unemployment; he does not mention that the group will look, I feel confident, at other issues, such as how we have managed to succeed in increasing investment in manufacturing for the first time in many years and to increase exports for the first time for some time. The group will consider a range of manufacturing issues.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government are concerned and wish to work with industry to see whether they can take any steps to deal with difficulties that the industry faces. He is also right that some jobs are being lost although not, of course, at anything like the rate at which they were lost under the previous Government, and it is true that many such jobs are in parts of the country represented by Labour Members. However, I am happy to say that as a result of the last election, there is Labour representation in all parts of the country.

Mr. Peter Luff: I remind the right hon. Lady that I am joint chairman of the Middle Way Group, which supports a compromise solution on hunting with dogs and gained the support of the Home Secretary yesterday. Does she understand that there is genuine concern about whether it is possible to deal with the complexities of the three issues in a single day on the Floor of the House? Will she use her very best endeavours to ensure that no ministerial statements are made on that day?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that a day is insufficient. The House will make a broad judgment on the options. I think that most right hon. and hon. Members are already perfectly well aware to which option they incline. It will then be for the House to continue later with further and more detailed discussion. I believe


that last night my right hon. Friend cited the precedent of the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which contained many more, and more complicated, options.

Mr. Luff: I was against that too.

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman was against that too, he has the merit of consistency. However, it does not alter the fact that that was thought sufficient time by the Government he supported to debate a number of options in exactly the way that this Government propose. However, I take his point. He will know that we are continually being pressed to make even more statements than we do, but we are mindful that there are particular days on which we seek to avoid cutting into debate time, and I will bear that in mind. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking, but I am conscious of his point.

Mr. Colin Breed: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Health, following the disturbing news from the authorities at Derriford hospital in Plymouth, which serves my constituency, that they contemplate requiring an additional consent form from patients about to undergo surgery so as to absolve the hospital of responsibility and blame for any problems that might arise due to inadequate facilities or hygiene? Is not that disturbing news that might have implications throughout the country?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman perfectly legitimately makes what he clearly feels is an important constituency point. I am not familiar with the details, as he will anticipate. Although I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the matter, he is in the Chamber and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make further inquiries and, should they confirm the concern he has just expressed, he may find an opportunity to raise the matter on 10 January when we debate the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the planning system? In two villages in my constituency, large former mental institutions are currently being redeveloped—mainly for housing. One is in Calderstones, near Whalley, and the other is in Whittingham. If both developments take place, they will alter dramatically the character of the nearby villages; in Whittingham, 950 houses are being considered.
The Government have introduced PPG3; we want to test how effective that is in ensuring that residents and local and parish councils can defend the interests of villages against wholesale development. If the guidelines are not effective, perhaps further guidelines will be necessary to protect those villages. The best Christmas and new year present that we could receive from the Government would be for them to ensure that the PPGs are effectively tightened to give better protection to local people against the influx of extra housing.

Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I am aware of such developments—they take place in many constituencies,

including mine, and sometimes cause concern. From what he says, the matter would appear to be rather more for the local authority than for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. However, if on mature consideration, the hon. Gentleman comes to the view that it raises issues about the nature of planning guidance, although I cannot promise him a debate I remind him that there will be questions to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 16 January.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Can the Leader of the House promise us a statement during the first week after the break on the continuing crisis of confidence in the sub-post office network? We were told that there was to be an announcement about the universal bank before Christmas—that does not seem to have occurred. The outcome of the lottery decision is unlikely to benefit the Post Office. The bottom has fallen out of the sub-post office market. What are the Government going to do about that? Does not this crisis demand a statement during the first week back?

Mrs. Beckett: Discussions are continuing about how best we can safeguard the rural post office network. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the matter as one of considerable difficulty—not least, of course, because of the way in which the Conservative Government, whom he supported, bled the Post Office white over so many years, ensuring that it had no resources for investment, which had a bad effect on the whole network. The Labour Government will certainly do their best to protect and to save the network. However, although the matter is of concern and Ministers continue to work with the relevant authorities to do what we can to assist, the hon. Gentleman says nothing that suggests to me the need for an urgent statement in the new year.

Mr. John Bercow: I want to raise a matter that there was no chance to highlight at Agriculture questions. Given that the pig industry has been losing up to £4 million a week and that, over the past two years alone, 25,000 people have left the sector altogether, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is important to have a statement from the Government, as a matter of urgency, to confirm that they intend to review the proposed operation of the integrated pollution prevention controls and to confirm that they will not be applied in a way that militates against the British sector relative to our continental counterparts? Finally, will the right hon. Lady take it from me that if such a statement is forthcoming, it will be received by my constituent, Mr. James King of Cowley farm, Preston Bissett in Buckingham, as an extremely welcome wedding present?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that that is a worthwhile reason for the Government to take such a major step. As the hon. Gentleman who is a regular attender at business questions, will recall, the matter has been raised frequently over recent months. We are conscious of the problems in the pig industry and the Government have provided special help to it.
The hon. Gentleman raises the particular issue of the IPPC. It is my recollection that the Prime Minister has been discussing the issues with the National Farmers Union. I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman time for further


discussions or statements on that matter, but I can and will undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Dr. Julian Lewis: May I renew my request to the Leader of the House for a statement or debate on the folly of a European army, particularly as it has now been described by a likely future assistant to President-elect Bush as a dagger pointed at the heart of NATO? While we are on the subject of President-elect Bush, does the right hon. Lady agree that the result of the US presidential election shows that to achieve an electoral victory it is not enough for a party to have had at its head a sharp-suited but shallow individual?

Mrs. Beckett: I rather think that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question was a boomerang.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of defence and the conversations about the European rapid reaction force. I note that he moved from people in a previous American Administration to likely future assistants to the new Administration, which is a matter of concern. No doubt this Government and other European Governments will be anxious—as will the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson—to reassure the incoming American Administration about the facts of what is proposed in the European context, and that it is not in any way a risk to NATO. As for the lessons to be learned from the American election, they are many—not least that those who say that it makes no difference whether people vote have learned a sharp lesson.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Leader of the House share my concern at the reported loss of 24,000 agricultural jobs per annum? Four hundred and fifty people are drifting from the land every week. Will the

right hon. Lady arrange an early statement or debate to discuss employment and training opportunities and assess what special assistance can be given to people who have lost their jobs?

Mrs. Beckett: I am indeed aware of what the hon. Gentleman rightly identified as a drift from the land. He will know that, although I do not take it lightly, that trend has occurred over generations, not just recent years. I do understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and he knows that the Government have worked hard, and will continue to do so, with representatives of the farming community to assist with what is certainly—the Government do not seek to disguise it—a continuing and serious crisis in agriculture. We will continue to try to identify a way forward, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be part of those discussions, particularly in relation to the part of the Province that he represents.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I note that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) is standing. I like to be generous, particularly at this time of year, but he must be able to hear what the Leader of the House has to say. I might have called the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot because he was not present to listen to the statement by the Leader of the House.

Dr. Whitehead: I was collecting information that has only just become available which was relevant to the request that I intended to make to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I was therefore unavoidably absent from the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's difficulty about that, but when one is a Back Bencher, one has to try to find other ways to make a point.

Adoption

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper, "Adoption: a new approach", which I am publishing today.
Every child should have the best possible start in life. As a country with one of the largest economies in the world, we should be aiming to provide opportunities for all children, whatever their backgrounds. The Government have a special responsibility to ensure that every child in our society has the opportunity to grow up in a stable and secure family. That is why we have taken action to lift more than a million children out of poverty, to raise child benefit by record levels and to increase support to families through the working families tax credit. In all, we are spending an extra £6 billion each year in real terms on financial support for children. It is also why we have taken action to strengthen safeguards for children, with new legislation, new resources and new programmes, such as the sure start and quality protects schemes. Together, those two programmes alone will provide investment of more than £1.8 billion over the next three years in services helping some of the most vulnerable children in the country.
Ultimately, stable families and strong communities provide the foundations for a fair society. Children do best when they grow up in a stable, loving family. When children cannot live with their birth parents, we have a shared responsibility to make sure that they can enjoy the loving family life that most of us take for granted.
As every hon. Member knows, the opportunity to grow up in a stable family environment has not been properly extended to looked-after children who, for one reason or another, cannot live with their birth families. It is not only the children who have lost out; society as a whole has paid a heavy price for that failure. At any one time, local councils look after 58,000 children. Seven in 10 of them leave care at 16 without a single qualification. Almost four in 10 male prisoners under 21 have been looked after at some stage in their lives; 25 per cent. of the people sleeping rough on the streets of London have been in care. That is not a failure of the child in care; it is a failure of the system of care.
Those children, perhaps above all others, need the safety, stability and loving care of a permanent new family, and they need that stability as quickly as humanly possible. That is not the case at present. Children stay in the care system far longer than they should. More than 28,000 children have been in care continuously for more than two years. Too often, despite the best intentions of all involved, they are passed from pillar to post inside that system. Nearly one in five looked-after children have three or more placements in a single year—some have six or more. For those children, the care system does not provide the stability that they need to overcome their troubled past and build a successful future. Those children need a better chance in life. They deserve a better deal.
Adoption can provide just such a new start in life for a looked-after child. Too often, adoption has been seen as a last resort when it should have been considered as a first resort. In some councils, 10 per cent. of looked-after children are adopted; in others, less than 1 per cent. are. As adoption services are run on a local basis, children and

adoptive parents can miss the chance that adoption brings. Overall, the system, including the courts, can be slow, cumbersome and unfair. Of course, the safety of every child should be of paramount concern, but, on average, children are waiting almost a year and a half before it is decided that adoption is best for them. Even after a decision is taken that they can be adopted, they wait longer still. Overall, the average time taken to adopt a looked-after child is three years—an eternity in a child's eyes.
People who want to adopt children from the care system need a better deal as well. We are short of adoptive parents, but the system deters people from adopting; it is slow, intrusive and sometimes simply inappropriate. There have been cases, as all hon. Members know, of potential adopters who have been told that they cannot adopt simply because they are too old or too middle class. Such blanket bans can have only one effect—they fail to put the needs of children first. Families who adopt children overwhelmingly do a brilliant job for those children. It is not an easy job, because many of the children are not easy. They and their adoptive parents deserve more support. Adoption services and adoption laws are in need of reform. The Adoption Act 1976 is based on legislation that dates back to 1958, and is inconsistent with the Children Act 1989.
In February this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched a thorough review of adoption. He commissioned the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office to consider the evidence and make recommendations for action. The report was published for consultation on 7 July this year. It found that there was clear scope for many more looked-after children to be adopted. The Prime Minister made it clear in July that the Government accepted some of its key recommendations. In particular, he announced that new legislation would be introduced next year.
The White Paper that I am publishing today outlines the most radical overhaul of adoption law and practice in 25 years. New legislation will seek to place children's safety, welfare, and interests at the heart of the adoption process. It will link adoption more closely with the principles of the Children Act 1989, and extend the options that courts have to secure a permanent family life for looked-after children. A new special guardianship order will be created for those children who want a more legally secure permanent family than can be delivered through foster care or residence orders, but who do not want to sever all legal ties with their birth family.
A clearer legal duty will be placed on local councils to plan for and provide comprehensive support services for adoptive families. Families who adopt children will be entitled to have their needs for support services properly assessed. They will have access to a comprehensive package of post-adoption support, including adoption allowances, in a way that is more consistent across the country. We are already consulting on introducing paid leave for adoptive parents, and for potential adopters whose application is rejected we will introduce a new right to an independent review.
Local councils and voluntary adoption agencies will need to make substantial improvements to their adoption services. Some are already doing so. Last year, the number of adoptions rose from 2,200 to 2,700, but much more needs to be done. New resources will be made available to produce better results. The Government will


provide £66 million of investment for local authorities over the next three years to help transform adoption services for children. In exchange for this investment, I will expect to see clear improvements in performance.
In future, we expect the majority of councils to do what the minority are already successfully doing: working collaboratively with other councils and voluntary adoption agencies. Council performance on adoption will be more rigorously monitored, not least through the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission. If a council is persistently failing to deliver, I will not hesitate to use my intervention powers to transfer its adoption services to another agency.
An adoption register for England and Wales will be established. It will match children with adoptive parents across the country when a local family cannot be found or when a child needs to move away from the local area. I am today issuing invitations to tender for the new register, with a view to its becoming operational next summer.
The courts, too, will need to improve their performance. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has been looking carefully at the causes of delays in dealing with children's cases. The White Paper sets out how we will speed up adoption cases. In the coming year, the Lord Chancellor's Department will increase the number of judges specially trained to deal with family work, and make better use of the available expertise. It will set up pilots to evaluate the benefits of concentrating adoption work in specialist adoption courts with experienced judges and court staff. It will also work with the president of the family court division on guidance to courts on better case management and take further steps to improve the way in which the courts deal with adoption cases.
Next year, too, the new children and family court advisory and support service—CAFCASS—will be set up, bringing together services for children in one comprehensive agency, allowing them better to meet the needs of children.
However, these changes in local courts and in local councils will not, by themselves, be enough to bring about the step change in adoption services that children need. Today, therefore, I am also publishing for consultation the first ever set of national adoption standards. They will help to drive up the standards of service for children and adoptive parents in all parts of the country. The standards set challenging new targets to speed up adoption processes.
Six months after being looked after continuously, every looked-after child will have an agreed plan for permanence. That might cover efforts to rehabilitate a child with their birth family, but if adoption is the plan for permanence, suitable adoptive parents should be found within a further six months That will be a major improvement on the current position and will almost halve the average time that it takes to find an adoptive family for a child. For foster carers who want to adopt a child, and if it is in the child's best interest for that to happen, we will go further still. Applications by foster carers who want to adopt a child in their care will be processed in just three months.
The standards will also set out how prospective adopters will be welcomed and treated in an open and fair way. There will be no blanket bans on people because of their age, health or other factors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,

hear."] For example, it is clear that the best family for a child is one who reflect their birth heritage—we certainly need to do much more to recruit adopters from diverse ethnic backgrounds—but no child should be denied loving adoptive parents solely on the grounds that the child and the parents have different racial or cultural backgrounds. The child's interest—their safety and well-being—will be the crucial factor in determining their adoptive parents. I hope that the measures will help us to treat and support adopters better so that we can attract more people successfully to adopt more children.
It is right that we are ambitious for looked-after children and for prospective families. There is no shortage of children who are looking for a stable and loving permanent family. A 1999 report for my Department found that 2,400 children were waiting to be adopted and 1,300 adopters were waiting for children. Adoption must become a first-choice option for looked-after children who cannot return home. Therefore, the White Paper sets a new national target to deliver a minimum 40 per cent. increase in lasting adoptions by 2005, although I hope that the measures that I have outlined today will help us to achieve a 50 per cent. increase over that period. Our aim must be to give many hundreds more looked-after children the chance to live as a permanent member of a stable, secure and, above all else, loving new family.
Children get only one chance to grow up. A looked-after child should have the same life chance as any other child. They should have an opportunity to belong, to have a stake and to get on in life. For too long, too many have been denied that and have been the innocent victims of a system that has failed to meet their needs to provide a permanent and secure loving family. It is a failure that we would not tolerate for ourselves; we would certainly not tolerate it for our own children, and we should not tolerate it for other children. The reforms to adoption that I have announced will transform the life chances of hundreds, hopefully thousands, of children. They deserve no less. I commend the proposals to the House.

Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that statement and, for the second time in two days, for making a copy of his statement available to the Opposition in advance.
Those of us who have worked professionally with the social services and have experience of the adoption process wholeheartedly welcome the announcement. We often say that children are the most vulnerable members of our society, but looked-after children are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. Therefore, as the Secretary of State said, it is extremely important that they are given the chance to experience a stable and loving environment out of what is too often a failure of the care environment.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will strongly welcome many of the proposals. It would be outwith the spirit of the season if I did not congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on his hard work. It happens in politics that the boss gets to steal the glory much of the time, but I am sure that the House will want to pay tribute to his contribution.
There is a general feeling among those involved in the adoption process that far too little importance is given to the child at the centre of the adoption, and far too much to the bureaucracy, the system and other people


surrounding the child. That is the central thrust of today's statement, but I should like the Secretary of State to expand on one or two of the items that he mentioned.
I welcome the concept of the national register, especially if, as I hope, I am correct in assuming that national objective criteria will set out the qualifications for being an adoptive or fostering parent, that they will be the same throughout the whole United Kingdom, and that they will form the basis of any appeal that might arise. Standardisation is one of the most important factors in encouraging parents to come forward. Currently, because standards are so varied throughout the country, people fear that they will be subject to local prejudice and other factors, so many are dissuaded from coming forward to give children the chance of a stable home. Only this week, we had brought to our attention the case of a couple who, because they had applied for IVF, were told that they were unsuitable to adopt. That is a disgrace and something that the whole House would strongly deprecate.
I welcome the concept of permanence, as set out by the Secretary of State. As he knows, during discussions on the Care Standards Bill we urged that provision be made to ensure that, after a period in care, children would automatically go forward for adoption. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has set out a constructive version of that theme, which we welcome, but will he consider making another provision for which we asked when we considered that Bill? Will he provide access to some mechanism to ensure that children maintain contact with groups outside the care environment before they start out on the process of adoption? As the right hon. Gentleman says, the adoption process is difficult and time-consuming for the children involved; if they were enabled to maintain a link with a family, a church group, a charity, or some outside influence that could give them a cultural experience broader than the one that they find in the care environment, that would be a positive step forward, which we would welcome.
I think that the Secretary of State accidentally missed out one element when he talked about the monitoring of performance. He mentioned the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission, but am I not correct to assume that the National Care Standards Commission will be involved in monitoring adoption standards? That provision already exists in legislation, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman accidentally omitted to mention it. In addition, when he says that, if a council persistently fails to deliver, he will use his intervention powers to transfer its adoption services to a different agency, what sort of agency does he have in mind? Is he talking about the privatisation of adoption services? If so, we would not object.
I have three short and specific points. First, the Secretary of State mentioned the courts. How long does the average adoption process take in the courts? His statement was not clear about that element in delays, but it makes a difference to our approach to reform. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the culture and training of social workers. Given that they are the ones who will have to execute any big change in the process, any improvement in that respect would be most welcome.
Thirdly, of the measures that the Secretary of State has outlined today, which will require primary legislation and which secondary legislation? If there is a point of

difference between us and the Government today, it is that we have to wait for legislation, given that we all agree on the need for reform and on many of the reforms themselves. The Secretary of State says that children need stability as quickly as humanly possible; well, we could provide it more quickly. The Prime Minister accepted the recommendations of his review in July and we could have implemented some of the measures in the Care Standards Act 2000. The Government have found time for legislation on other matters, but not for legislation on adoption. I ask them to think again and to get a move on.
The Secretary of State is right to say that children need action. We do not need to wait another year. We shall support the legislation if is introduced on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman has set out today, so let the Government put their legislation where their mouth is and get on with it. That is the best Christmas present that they could give to children in care.

Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm support for the measures that I have announced. I think that overwhelmingly they will command support throughout the House. I very much hope that they will.
I join the hon. Gentleman—I did not have the opportunity to do this earlier—in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and other members of the ministerial team. My hon. Friend has taken a lead on the issue and has done a first-class job. It is nice to be able to get that on the record.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in future we must do what seems to be a simple thing, but is pretty difficult to achieve. We must examine the entire adoption process through the eyes of the child rather than through the eyes of those who are administering the process. If we can do that and produce that culture change, we shall introduce major improvements in the system, particularly in making it quicker, more accessible and more appropriate.
The register will be separate from the national objective criteria that we are setting. I hope that the register will be up and running—invitations will be issued for tenders today—by about July next year. The hon. Gentleman is right about national standards. They will be enforced throughout the country, and that is the right thing to do. As a point of information for the hon. Gentleman and the House, a statutory code of practice will accompany the standards and the proposed legislation. I will be ensuring through section 7 statutory guidance that local authorities enforce the standards that we are setting at national level to ensure that children and potential adoptive parents throughout the country get a fairer deal than hitherto.
The hon. Gentleman said that children in care should be able to maintain contact with those outside the care system. That is absolutely right. As he is aware, the Children Act 1989 places a primary requirement on social services to provide such contact, especially in relation to a child's extended family. That should be the first point of contact that any child in care is given by the social services authority.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the National Care Standards Commission. It will have an important role when it comes on line in 2002, both in regulating adoption agencies and inspecting local social services departments and their adoption functions.
There are two possible routes for the transfer of adoption services from a local authority. The first is transfer to another local authority. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, many local authorities are voluntarily entering into consortiums arrangements with others. That provides a larger pool of children, a larger pool of parents and a larger pool of expertise. It is a good thing, and we want to see more of it. Secondly, it will be possible to transfer adoption services to a voluntary adoption agency where local authority services are failing. Many agencies do an extremely good job and we want to see their role enhanced.
At present, we do not have information about the time that is taken in the courts. We are seeking to elicit that information as an element in speeding up the court process. There are two separate delays. One is within social services departments and the second is when the case gets into a court, where further delays compound the problem for both the child and the adoptive parents. We shall be examining these matters closely.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that we need to make some major changes to social work culture and training. In the past few months, I have announced that an extra £41 million is going into social work training to ensure that we have more qualified social workers who are appropriately trained.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about primary legislation. I repeat for the benefit of the House what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said and the commitment that he has given. We shall be introducing legislation next year. The hon. Gentleman asked about the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I do not know as yet what it contains, but adoption legislation to carry forward our radical programme of reform will need a large piece of legislation—larger than would normally be possible through a private Member's Bill. Furthermore, the two measures that the hon. Lady has said will be included in her Bill—a national adoption register and consistent national eligibility criteria—do not require primary legislation. We shall be getting on with those things now.

Mrs. Llin Golding: As joint chair of the all-party Back-Bench group on adoption, I welcome this enormous step forward for children. I thank everyone at the Department for the hard work that has been done to produce such a good package. There are very few questions to ask—perhaps only how the commissioner for care will link into it. For those most deprived children, Father Christmas has come early.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the work that she and the all-party group have done. It is always useful for Ministers to have a bit of pressure—not too much. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been feeling the heat, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) feels that the pressure that she and others have been applying has achieved the right response.
The role of the commissioner or director will be extremely important in the future, and will involve taking a broad view of how well children's services are being delivered. That is right. We are setting in place various mechanisms to make sure that we get the right balance between speeding up the adoption process and ensuring

that appropriate safeguards are in place. We will not compromise on quality in order to achieve the quantity targets that we have set. That is very important. We know that the best local authorities achieve both. They manage both to speed up the adoption process and to deliver a high quality service. I have a simple view on that: if one local authority can do it, every local authority can.

Sandra Gidley: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not become too bored by the fact that most of us welcome the White Paper. The only regret is that it is long overdue and no place was found for it in the Queen's Speech.
I particularly welcome the setting of national standards, which will end the heart-breaking experience of many prospective adoptive parents when they try to find a council whose criteria they fit. I also welcome the right of appeal to an independent body; the £66 million that local authorities will be given to invest in improving adoption services; and the recognition of the importance of after-care and support following adoption. However, I can find no mention of on-going funding for that process.
Social services around the country are hard-pressed for cash, so will there be an input of money from the Government to fund this worthwhile scheme? We need to make sure that adoptions last. Many of the children come from damaged backgrounds. Three years is a long time for a child to be in care before being adopted, and we must do everything possible to minimise the long-term effects of that. Can the Secretary of State confirm that funding to local authorities will be on-going throughout that process?
I have a couple more quick questions. What will the special guardianship order mean in practice? Finally, the PIU report in July showed that there was scope for a much higher proportion of looked-after children to be adopted. There was no mention of any measures proposed to attract a wider pool of potential adoptive parents. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on that?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome for the proposals. The special guardianship order will be particularly important for older children who want to maintain contact with their birth families—who do not want to sever their ties with them, but want more than all the benefits that long-term fostering can offer. That order will end councils' legal responsibility for looking after the children. That will become the responsibility of the family with the special guardianship order, which will be particularly attractive to the children themselves.
Incidentally, it is worth saying that in the course of preparing the White Paper, we consulted various agencies and so on, but we also took the trouble to consult some children in care, as well as children in the adoption system and some who have been adopted. I hope that their views have informed the final product.
The White Paper has been published on time. I do not know where the hon. Lady got the idea that it had not been.
On-going support is important. We know that about 18 per cent. of adoption placements—one in five—break down. It is therefore very important that, as we increase the number of adoptions, we increase the support that families get. Adopting a child is not an easy process for the child or the family, and we should not assume that it


is straightforward: it is not. It requires help and, sometimes, cash, which is why I expect local authorities to spend a good proportion of the £66 million that we are providing on adoption allowances for families who do not always have great wherewithal.
As part of the on-going support, we have given local authorities three years of funding. This is the first time that they have ever had that, and the funding is part of the quality protects money. I know that we shall never satisfy Liberal Democrat Members on that point. Every time that we put money in, they always want more, but they never say where that should come from. The problem is that, in the end, I am afraid, one must take decisions about where the money is coming from. Two things are involved: the money to be spent and the money that one gets. One has to balance them both.

Ms Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I am quite emotional about it because I have the privilege of being an adoptive parent. My right hon. Friend could not exaggerate the hideousness of the procedure that so many people go through, and could not exaggerate the awful trauma that so many children experience. I stand here as a privileged mum of a 20-year old who has been, and will remain, my two eyes. I am therefore grateful for the statement.
When my right hon. Friend mentioned the independent appeals procedure, I, for one, said, "Yes!" I was 32, had gone through awful episodes—as one could well imagine—and was told by social services that I was too old to adopt. That broke my heart, and my husband's heart. The fact that we were Christians and attended church gave us the opportunity to adopt Philippa. However, that should never ever be the case. I cannot say that I am a brilliant parent, but I think that I am two thirds a good parent. I would not like to exaggerate, but many people want to take part in bringing up children, and the proposal will give them the opportunity to do that, as the appeals procedure is vital.
Perhaps this is a personal beef, but was no consideration given to having a national bureau for adoption? I know that we have national standards, and I like that. However, having been the victim of a local authority decision and having had no recourse, may I ask whether any consideration was given to establishing a national body? Lastly, may I ask the Secretary of State, as a good friend of mine, what support will be given to the birth mother who, in making her decision, goes through an awfully traumatic time, both before and after adoption? Support is therefore crucial. As a mum—a privileged, adoptive mum—and on behalf of my partner, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement?

Mr. Milburn: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for what she said and all that she has done. She is right that the current processes are horrendous. One would think that there were too many potential adoptive parents in this country and too few children in care. However, the position is quite the reverse. The way in which the system has operated has deterred adoptive parents and prevented children in care from getting the support and the loving permanent family that they need. The White Paper is important—as will be the legislation—as it will turn that situation around.
My hon. Friend raised two specific matters. On the creation of a bureau, we looked carefully at that in the course of our consultation, especially after the PIU report was published in July, but there were mixed views on it. The primary thing to keep in mind is the importance of maintaining the strong; linkage between local adoption services and local child protection services. That is why, in the end, we chose the model that we did. It will keep adoption services local, but at the same time, ensure that there is a national adoption register, which will provide a bigger pool of prospective parents and children and, we hope, get the match right.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about birth parents. Anybody who thinks that giving up a child is easy has got it wrong. The White Paper advocates some simple things that we can do in respect of birth parents. For example, we can change the form that birth families have to sign when they give up their child. It currently states that they give up their child freely and without regret, but such wording is not appropriate. In future, the form will make it clear that parents are signing because they believe that the adoption is in the child's best interests. I hope that that will be a small step towards making the process slightly easier.

Mr. Julian Brazier: As co-chairman with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) of the all-party group on adoption, I strongly welcome the statement and congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on a series of measures that will make a material difference to some desperately disadvantaged children whom Parliament has failed for far too long. I especially welcome the moves on post-adoption alliances, as well as the introduction of the national register and the fact that it is being put out to independent tender. I welcome also the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for parents who have been turned down and the time framework that is to be imposed on local authorities.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that, in delivering all those measures, the voluntary organisations and local authorities will be fishing in the same limited pool of social workers. His parallel consideration of social work training and of the culture of the social services departments—an issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred—will be critical.
I leave the right hon. Gentleman with one more thought. Although I strongly endorse his remarks about changing the wording of the forms for birth parents who are genuinely agonising about what is best for their children, I ask him not always to be sympathetic to birth parents. He must bear in mind birth parents such as those of a little chap who was adopted recently in my constituency. They had kept him locked in a cellar for so many years that he could not speak. Another child was left outside for so long that doctors had to consider amputating his feet because of gangrene. There are some good birth parents, but also some bad ones; the balance is difficult to strike.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on a splendid package.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As he said some very difficult balances must be struck. Anybody who thinks that there are simple solutions has got it remarkably wrong.
On social workers and social work training, we need two things. First, we need more staff. We are trying to tackle the current shortage of appropriately trained staff, not least by giving those who are already working in the social care world the opportunity to train in order to obtain a social work qualification. The £41 million that we have made available for the next three years specifically for that purpose will help us in achieving it. Secondly, we must ensure that the training is more appropriate. The White Paper and, previously, the PIU report, concluded that the training that is currently given and the product that we get are not appropriate. That must change. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman spoke about cultural changes. That is the correct term; some big cultural changes must be made, and they will take time to take effect.

Ms Jenny Jones: As somebody who worked in adoption some years ago, I wholeheartedly welcome the review, which is long overdue. Everybody in the profession realises that it is about time that the fundamental changes that are proposed were made.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the quality of the vetting of adoptive parents is given a thorough overhaul? That should be done not only to remove some of the false barriers that good adoptive parents face with regard to age and all the rest of it, but to prevent the devastation that can affect some children, who, having spent some years in care, believe themselves to be going into a loving home, only to find that they have entered an abusive one. That has happened most often because the social workers have not kept their eye on the ball or managed to find the signals of abuse. Nothing could be more devastating for a child. Will my right hon. Friend reassure hon. Members that he will keep that at the forefront of his mind when the adoption process is speeded up?

Mr. Milburn: I can certainly give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that there will be no compromise on children's safety or children's protection. Two important points should be made. As she is aware, the Criminal Records Bureau will come on line next summer, and that will be a great help in pooling our knowledge about abuse and abusers. Voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities will be allowed direct access to that bureau, which will be helpful not only in finding information, but in finding it more quickly.
Assessment is crucial in ensuring that the child's safety and well-being are taken fully into account and that we achieve the right result for both the prospective parents and the child. As part of the White Paper proposals, we shall review how the assessment criteria are used. That review will begin next year, and will probably take some time to take effect, but I believe that the end product will be a better and more rigorous set of assessment criteria that will achieve the right result for more children and more prospective parents.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that probably the biggest cheer that he received for his excellent statement was for the passage in which he condemned blanket bans resulting from a form of reverse racialism that holds that loving, white, potential adoptive parents should not be allowed to adopt black children? Can he throw some light on the puzzlement that hon. Members on both sides of the House

feel about how such attitudes ever came to be prevalent? Can he reassure us that the sort of people who held such disgraceful attitudes will not be in a position to inject more poison into the system? I conclude as I began: I congratulate him on an excellent statement.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm words.
We must ensure that the child's safety, well-being and interests are at the centre of everything that we do. That is what counts: end of story, bottom line. The figures are appalling. One child in five with an adoption plan is from a black or minority ethnic background. Black children wait, on average, five months longer for placement than white children. Kids themselves lose out as a result of such nonsense. It is right that local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies alike take due note of the figures and of the clear guidance that my Department has issued: first, that the heritage of a child should of course be fully taken into account in making the assessment and the placement and, secondly, that there should be no racial barriers to ensuring that a child receives the loving, supportive and permanent family that he or she needs.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): I, too, am a proud parent, with my wife Rosemary, of two grown-up adopted sons, Damien and Luke, who bring great joy. It is great that adoption is possible, but it should only ever be secondary to the possibility of children remaining with their birth parents.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that a definite, permanent solution will be found after six months, which is good. However, will every effort be made in those six months to give the right support to natural, or birth, parents to establish whether there is any possibility of the children remaining with them? One often hears complaints against social services, usually relating to lack of resources, that little effort is made in that period and that matters drift. Birth parents feel aggrieved, upset and distressed that they were perhaps not given the support that they needed to find out whether they could make it. Although I agree that there comes a point—perhaps in six months—when a decision must be made, it is important that birth parents are given every opportunity.

Mr. Milburn: I agree. As we know from current practice, about half of all children who end up in local authority care are back with their birth families within two months. As my hon. Friend knows, under the Children Act 1989, social services departments' primary requirement is to ensure on-going contact and, if possible, re-placement with the birth family. When appropriate, that must be the right action to take. In addition, as he said, we must set a time limit that is fair for the child. Although six months might not sound long to us, it is a substantial proportion of the life of a child aged two, three, four or five. The truth is that the current system is far too slow and cumbersome, and it does not deliver the goods for the birth family, for the potential adoptive family and, most important of all, for the child.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that adoption should be the first resort rather than the last. Will he extend that principle to the advice given by the statutory agencies to


people who are considering having an abortion? At the moment, there is a dearth of advice about the alternative to an abortion: that is, giving birth and giving the child for adoption. Does he think that many more children would be born rather than aborted if the system enabled the birth mother to identify prospective adoptive parents in advance, and to have a say in the decision on which family should be given the child on adoption?
That principle operates in the United States. I have a relative who has adopted two children at birth in the US having discussed adoption with the mother beforehand. Surely that system should be applied in this country. Unlike those on the "Today" programme, I have not seen the White Paper, but I hope that it contains such a proposal.

Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the "Today" programme team has seen the White Paper, he has another think coming. I shall let him into a little secret: I did not get the White Paper back from the printers until 10 o'clock, and the "Today" programme goes off the air at 8.59, but maybe he is right and I am wrong.
On the issue that the hon. Gentleman has just raised, what counts is choice. He does not have the right to make the choice for others any more than I do. It is the woman's right to make the choice, and she should be free to do so.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Today's statement will be excellent news for my constituents who have adopted children recently or are going through the difficult process right now and have lobbied me about equal rights with birth parents, especially on adoption allowances and paid leave. Those announcements will be very welcome to my constituents. When all the excellent proposals are put in place, will future adoptive parents be on an equal footing with natural parents in terms of paid leave, allowances and benefits?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is aware that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he announced his Green Paper proposals on parental and other leave, said that we will consult on precisely the issue that he has just raised. We are doing so, and there is undoubtedly a very strong case for that in many people's minds. That consultation is taking place, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will take part in it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the statement. Clearly, a child is far happier with a loving mother and father than in an institution. Does the Secretary of State intend to facilitate or allow adoption by same-sex couples?

Mr. Milburn: We have no plans to change the current law, which is clear. That law operated under the previous Government, and will continue to operate under this Government. I shall make one important point. This issue is not about the rights of any individual or any couple to have a child. It is about the rights of the child. It is the

child's interests, the child's safety and the child's well-being that come first. With respect, neither the hon. Gentleman nor I can decide what is in the child's best interest. That is a matter for those who handle these difficult and sensitive issues, and in the end it is a matter for the courts.

Caroline Flint: I welcome the statement. I am sorry to pop the bubble of festive consensus, but although some Conservative Members clearly felt strongly about this issue, from 1979 to 1997 nothing was done by successive Tory Governments to address it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have done more to support family life in the past three years, whether for natural parents or adoptive parents, than any Government for many generations?
In his statement, my right hon. Friend said that a permanent placement would be sought after six months. Will he ensure that social services departments do not make unnecessary excuses for denying a child a permanent place? The problem is that there are too many children in the care system. They are damaged by their natural families, and then damaged by the system that they are put into. By the time they reach an age at which it is thought that they can go to an adoptive family, the damage has already been done.
On too many occasions, social services departments have not given enough support to adoptive parents. They have not informed adoptive parents of the background of the children—of their needs and, possibly, of the abuses that they have experienced. In such circumstances, it is important that discussion takes place—for the sake of those children, but also for the sake of those who will be adoptive siblings.

Mr. Milburn: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. There are important lessons to be learned. To be fair, however, I must say that some local authorities—along with some voluntary adoption agencies—are doing a good job. We should not lose sight of that. The problem is that there are too few such organisations, which is why we must set national standards, establish a clear national adoption register and review the criteria for assessment, ensuring that they apply nationally as well as locally. Those are the things that we must do to eradicate what many would describe as one of the worst forms of the lottery of care that has been all too prevalent in the care system as a whole.
Yes: I think that, with the good will of voluntary adoption agencies, local authorities, the Government and, I hope, the House, it will be possible to bring about a fundamental transformation of the way in which the adoption system works

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 2000
City of Newcastle upon Tyne Act 2000.

Points of Order

Mr. Tim Boswell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a written answer given to me yesterday—it can be found at column 228W of the Official Report— the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), confirmed that a 15-person delegation from Britain and British overseas territories had attended the November triennial conference of Education Ministers in Halifax, Canada. It was led by Mr. Jack McConnell. He is not a Member of either House of this Parliament; he is, of course, a member of the Scottish Executive, and a Minister in the Scottish Parliament. I note from an earlier parliamentary answer that on at least one occasion a Scottish Minister has led a British delegation to a European Council meeting.
As the House will know, I have an interest in Commonwealth education, and have served as an education Minister with responsibility for, among other matters, international affairs. I was used to leading—I hope, successfully and amicably—multi-territorial delegations to international meetings. While I do not criticise the individuals who made up the delegation to Canada, I regret that no Ministers in the House of Commons ordered their diaries in such a way that they could attend the meeting.
More seriously still, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider how we can achieve the accountability to the House of persons who speak in the name of the Government. This is not simply a matter involving unelected civil servants or officials, who can speak, or are responsible, through their Ministers; it is a question of a person, purporting to speak for the United Kingdom, who holds a partial mandate in one part of that kingdom.
Education is a sensitive cultural matter. Although I have not checked, I do not think that the delegation to Canada can possibly have been led by the Education Minister of the province of Newfoundland, let alone that of, for instance, Quebec.
My substantive point is this: whoever was selected, if that person was not a Member of Parliament here, we have no possibility of questioning him here. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on the propriety and wisdom of the situation that Ministers have created.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I am afraid that I cannot help him, as it is a matter for the Government as

to who represents them at overseas conferences. However, the Government remain accountable to the House for the choice of the delegation and for the outcome of the conference as it affects United Kingdom interests. The hon. Gentleman can therefore pursue his interest in the conference by using the usual procedures of the House.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on whether it is in order for Departments to refuse to supply information which is available to them by using the device of providing blocking answers to named-day written questions. I refer specifically to the announcements on type 45 destroyer procurement which were made this morning and to three named-day written questions that I had tabled for answer last Friday.

Mr. Speaker: The answers or lack of answers from Ministers are not a responsibility of the occupant of the Chair. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. By raising his point of order, he has put the matter on the record, and I am sure that the appropriate Minister will note his concern.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You heard, as I did, the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and the Leader of the House about facilities of the House being used for apparently racist reasons. May I ask whether any checks are made on whether facilities of the House, such as meeting rooms, are used for purposes that could be considered to be, for example, racist? If so, can any action be taken to stop such use? Although I appreciate that meeting rooms are booked by hon. Members, I think that it is totally unacceptable that—if my hon. Friend is right—such facilities should be used to spread racist poison. Would it be at all possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to make inquiries into the matter?

Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member booking such facilities should always be careful about how the facilities are to be used and ensure that they are used only by reputable organisations. We have domestic Committees, and I am sure that they—particularly their Chairmen—will note the comments of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). I dare say that they will look into the matter. Certainly if it were ever proved that such an organisation was operating in the House, I would take a very serious view on it. I hope that that is of assistance.

Mr. Winnick: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.

Social Security

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 13th December, be approved.
This order and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 2000 increase pensions, provide more help for families with children and do more for people with disabilities and carers than ever before. We are able to make the increases because we are now seeing the results of our reforms to the welfare state. Because we have more people off benefit and in jobs, we are spending £4 billion less this year and £4 billion less next year on the costs of unemployment.
At the previous general election, we promised that we would cut the bills of economic and social failure, and we have. As a result of that and other action, social security spending is now under control, for the first time in three decades. Consequently, we can spend more where it is needed, giving greater security to those who are retired or cannot work, just as we promised to do. Indeed, social security spending would be decreasing in real terms, for the first time since the second world war, had we not deliberately chosen to spend more on families with children, people with disabilities and pensioners.
All that stands in stark contrast to what happened in the 1980s, when, as we remember—in 1988, 1989 and 1990—Tory Secretaries of State came to the House to announce that they would freeze child benefit. By contrast, last year, we were able to announce a record increase in child benefit—which, this year, is being increased yet again.
Today's uprating order will increase most income-related benefits by the Rossi index, which is 1.6 per cent., in the usual way. However, there are a number of areas in which we want to do more than that.
First, we want to do more for children. We are determined to eradicate child poverty in this country, and to halve it in 10 years. When the Government came into office, one child in three was living below the bread line. That is unacceptable. It is economic madness, and it is also morally wrong to hold back a whole generation of children.
As a result of our Budget measures, a million children will be lifted out of poverty. That will deliver real opportunity for everyone, not just the privileged few.
However, from April next year we will go further. That is why we are increasing child benefit, and introducing the new children's tax credit. As a result of these measures, and of the working families tax credit, a single-earner family with two children, on half average earnings, will see its living standards rise by 20 per cent. this year—the biggest annual rise for a quarter of a century. By the end of this Parliament, we will be spending almost £6 billion extra a year on support for families with children, with most of the help going to the poorest families.

Mr. Steve Webb: I rise to seek clarification about the children's tax credit. I understand that the Inland Revenue does not know who the children

of tax payers are, as such information is not part of the tax system. As a result, it sent out 7 million forms, just over 2 million of which have been returned. Apart from those 2 million families, what will be the situation for all other families who pay tax? If they have not returned the form, do the Government have a plan to find them? How will they get their money? What is the latest date by which forms can be returned so that families can still get the money in April?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman knows that responsibility for the Inland Revenue rests with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will make a point of asking my right hon. Friend, or one of his Ministers, to write to the hon. Gentleman to outline the Inland Revenue's plans in that respect. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the tax authorities do not necessarily know who has children. That is why the Inland Revenue wrote to all those taxpayers who it thought might be eligible. From next year, the child tax credit will be worth £10 a week, and will be a valuable help to families on modest and low incomes. We are anxious to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from it, and I will certainly ask one of my colleagues to write to the hon. Gentleman with details of what we propose to do.
The important point to note is that the Government are not extending financial help alone. Other measures—such as the sure start initiative and our general objective of raising standards in education, which we are now achieving—are ensuring that millions of children get a far better opportunity and start in life than in the past.
In particular, we want to do more for families on low incomes who are bringing up children with disabilities, and to help with the extra costs that they face. That is why from April, for the first time, we will extend benefits to severely disabled three and four-year-olds. As a result, some 6,000 disabled children and their families will be better off by more than £38 a week.
We are also raising the disabled child premium by £7.40 a week, on top of the normal uprating. That means that around 80,000 children will see a rise in the premium, from £22.25 a week to £30 a week. That will be a real increase for some of the poorest families in the country who need that extra help.
Secondly, we want to do more for adults with severe disabilities. As I said in my statement to the House on 9 November, we have decided to introduce the disability income guarantee for people with severe disabilities from April next year at a far higher rate than originally intended. We had intended that it be introduced at the rate of £128 a week, but in fact the rate will be £142 a week—an extra £14 a week. For couples, the rate will be £186.80.
In addition, from April next year young adults disabled early in life will benefit from an extra £27.60 a week. Until the changes were introduced, those people got so little money that they depended on income support for most of their lives. I do not consider that to be acceptable in today's society, which is why we are increasing the amount that they get by £27 a week. All of the extra money has been made possible by the changes that we made two years ago.
Thirdly, we are doing more for carers. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have long recognised that the carer's contribution needs to be properly recognised. That is why we are increasing the


carer's premium by £10 a week on top of the normal uprating. That means that the premium will rise in April from £14.15 to £24.40, helping more than 200,000 carers on low incomes. We are also increasing the earnings threshold for the invalid carer's allowance from £50 to £72—the rate of the lower earnings limit.
In total, we will be spending nearly £200 million more on supporting carers and people with disabilities next year, and every year thereafter. That is something that the Tories never did—what is more, they never could do it because of the cuts guarantee to which they are committed. It is interesting that so few of them have turned up for the debate. [Interruption.] I have found one. There is a Tory sitting at the back. I apologise to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)—he is lurking under the Gallery, and I did not see him in the gloom. He will no doubt tell his colleagues of all the good things that the Labour Government are able to do for people, thanks to our economic policies.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: That will not take long.

Mr. Darling: In addition to the measures that I have outlined, we are also introducing measures to improve the vaccine damage regime. In case the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) raises the matter again, I would like to take the opportunity of saying that we will be introducing the necessary legislation to reduce the disability threshold from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent., and to increase the time limits for claiming for children to the age of 21. We propose that these changes be introduced in the regulatory reform order as part of the Regulatory Reform Bill, which is now before the House. I said in the summer that we would act, and we will. With regard to the main changes that I announced in the summer to increase the vaccine damage payment to £100,000 for claims made after 22 July, those payments are now being made. That is the main step that I announced and it is being implemented.
No doubt the Conservatives—or, at least, the two of them on the Front Bench and the one on the Back Bench—will criticise us for not doing more sooner. However, the previous Government had 18 years to sort this out and they did not. We have made the necessary changes, which will go some way towards helping the families affected. I hope that most people will accept that.
I now turn to pensions.

Sir Robert Smith: Before the Secretary of State talks about pensions, could he answer the question of a 24-year-old constituent of mine? Have the Government any plans to alter the housing benefit system, because my constituent does not understand why, at the age of 24, his housing need is considered to be less than his neighbour who is 26? In a constituency like mine, if young people are to stay and work in the community, we must tackle the cost of housing for them.

Mr. Darling: I do not know whet her the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to read the Government's response to the consultation exercise that we carried out after publishing the Green Paper on housing. We have said that we want to

broaden the definition of the single room reference rent to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which will help those under 25 in many parts of the country.

Mr. Webb: If I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, he might have been referring to the fact that the applicable amounts for the under-25s are lower than for those over 25. For a person in a low-paid job, for example, the tapering away of the rent rebate starts at a lower level for a 24-year-old than for a 25-year-old. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to address that issue?

Mr. Darling: We have made it clear that we do not propose to change the general regime, which is different from that for the under-25s. As I said to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith)—who is no doubt capable of asking his own question—we have broadened the definition, which will go some way to help. However, if the question is whether we propose to remove the distinction between those over 25 and those under, the answer is no.
I shall now deal with pensions. Most national insurance benefits will rise in line with the retail prices index, which is 3.3 per cent. However, as the House will know, we want to do more than that to help pensioners. First, we want to tackle the scandal of pensioner poverty. Secondly, we want to ensure that every pensioner shares in the rising prosperity of our country. Thirdly, we want to reward pensioners for their saving instead of penalising it, as was the case under the system that we inherited.
Our first priority was to get more help quickly to the poorest pensioners; that is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which is already helping almost 2 million of the poorest pensioners. It is worth remembering that when we came into office, just three years ago, a single pensioner, aged 70, on income support, would have received a weekly income of £68.80. As a result of the measures before the House, the minimum income guarantee will rise to £92.15 from April, so that same pensioner—who would have been living on £68.80 three years ago—will be nearly £18 a week better off, over and above inflation. That is an example of how Governments can make a real difference in the standard of living of some of the oldest and poorest people in the country.
As we move towards the pension credit from 2003, we are increasing the basic state pension, which we believe should be the foundation of pension provision. It is part of the partnership between state and funded pensions that is essential if people are to retire on a decent income in the future. We want to raise the basic state pension by £5 a week for single people and by £8 a week for married couples; the pension will rise again in the following year. As I told the House in November, I can also confirm that widow's and bereavement benefits will rise by the same amounts.
That is on top of the £200 winter fuel payment, worth nearly £4 a week. Eleven million pensioners have already been sent their winter fuel payment; many of them appreciate that it makes a major contribution towards meeting their fuel costs at what is, traditionally, a time of great worry for many pensioners.

Mr. Webb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: Yes, why not? The hon. Gentleman is determined to make his speech through interventions, so as it is Christmas I shall help him out for once.

Mr. Webb: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My question is straightforward and factual. Will he confirm that, next year, he plans to cut the winter fuel payment to £150?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Government make their proposals for pensions annually; we shall continue to do so as appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman might have been good enough to acknowledge the fact that the Government have gone a long way towards tackling the problem of fuel poverty—especially among older people—which he periodically raises in the House. We have cut VAT to the lowest permissible amount and we have also increased the winter fuel payment; that is making a real difference to many pensioners.
As for next year and the years after that, the hon. Gentleman will just have to wait. However, when people look back over the past three years at what the Government have done for pensioners, they will realise that we have done exactly what we promised—we have tackled pensioner poverty and ensured that all pensioners are able to share fairly in the rising prosperity of our country. In fact, we have done far more than the Liberals ever promised to do. The hon. Gentleman sometimes gives the impression that he has never read the manifesto on which he stood for election, but I remind him that the Liberals never promised to do even half of what we are doing.
As well as the changes to which I have referred, we have introduced free television licences for the over-75s; that is worth a further £2 a week.

Mr. David Drew: Given the European judgment on the payment of the winter fuel allowance to 60-year-old men, will that payment be made regardless of whether such men are in full-time work? Will it continue without affecting their tax and benefit in any way? Will my right hon. Friend clarify those points?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Following the judgment in the Taylor case last year, the Government announced that they would make payments to men aged over 60 and who were under the age of 65. All those who applied before the beginning of November should have received their payment. It is open to them to apply whenever they want and they will receive their payment as soon as it can be processed.
The advantage of the winter fuel payment and the free television licence—to which I am about to return—is that they are tax free and benefit free; if they were consolidated into the basic state pension, that would not be so.
When we debate these matters, it never ceases to amaze me that the Conservatives now oppose winter fuel payments and free television licences. Someone kindly reminded me of a private Member's Bill that had escaped my attention. It was introduced at the beginning of this Parliament and would have given free television licences to the over-75s. I was surprised to find that its promoter was the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs

(Mr. Flight) and that it its sponsors included the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley); the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury no less—the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin); the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who, I think, also holds a Front-Bench position; the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who was sitting on the Front Bench this morning before she left to pursue other activities; and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who, I think, has something to do with the Tory manifesto.
In 1997, all those Members were in favour of giving free television licences to the over-75s. Surprise, surprise: the bandwagon is now running in a different direction and they are all against it. I look forward to hearing, when the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security gets to his feet, how he squares what his colleagues, now on the Front Bench, said three years ago with what they say now. He will no doubt explain it to the additional Conservative Member who has now appeared in the Chamber since this debate began, bringing us to a grand total of four.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that before he became a Member of Parliament, virtually all his present Cabinet colleagues then in Parliament—including the Prime Minister—were good enough to vote for my private Member's Bill, the Free Television Licences for Pensioners Bill, on 16 January 1987? It was defeated on a Friday by strenuous Tory whipping. Have not our Cabinet colleagues honoured what they voted for then by starting the process of giving free television licences to the over-75s?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of that. It took a little longer than we hoped to deliver our promise. I Unfortunately, 10 further years were to elapse before we were elected to government.
The crucial point is to recognise the significant problem of pensioner poverty in this country. It is scandalous that in this country, the fourth largest economy in the world, there are pensioners living in poverty. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel payments, and free television licences to help the oldest pensioners.
In total during this Parliament, we are spending £8.5 billion more on pensioners than the previous Government planned to do. We can do that only because we are delivering stable economic growth and reforming the welfare state, so we can make the necessary funds available to tackle these problems.
Earlier this year, I set out our plans to reward pensioners for saving and to take the next steps towards the integration of the tax and benefits system for pensioners. From 2003, the new pension credit will mean that, for the first time ever, pensioners will be rewarded for their thrift. That credit, which is opposed by the Conservatives, will help 5.5 million pensioners—half of all the pensioner households in this country. The message is clear: it will always pay to save.
As part of the transition to the pension credit, the order would double the lower capital limit for the minimum income guarantee from £3.000 to £6,000 and increase the higher limit from £8,000 to £12,000. As a result, half a million pensioners will gain.
We shall go on to abolish the capital limits completely when the pension credit is introduced from 2003. At that time we shall also abolish the tariff income, which assumes an extraordinarily high rate of return, which many pensioners find difficult to understand.
I believe that the pension credit, which is the third stage in our pension reforms, will mark a sea change in the way in which the social security system operates. For the first time, we will have removed the disincentive to save. That will ensure that, when pensioners do what successive Governments tell them to do, they will see the gain resulting from it. I find it extraordinary that the Conservatives should oppose, to coin a phrase, a common-sense measure.
We are able to spend more money on pensioners, families, people with disabilities and their carers only because of the measures that we have taken over the past three years. No doubt, in a few minutes' time, we shall hear the usual complaints from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who speaks for the Conservative party, but he must explain how he will be able to achieve anything like the measures that we have announced today, when his party is committed to £16 billion of spending cuts.
Regarding social security alone, we know that the Conservatives do not support the earnings-related minimum income guarantee. They are opposed to pension credit. They want to keep a system that penalises thrift. We know that they want to the process of privatising the basic state pension, scrap the new deal for lone parents and take £90 million out of the social fund, which will hit some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country.
We also know that the Conservatives want to get rid of industrial injuries benefit, which will impose a jobs tax on employers. We also know the Conservatives would axe the winter fuel payment, the Christmas bonus and the free television licences for pensioners. That is some manifesto. The best that they can offer pensioners is a mere 42p a week instead, and that is before tax and benefits. Of course, 2.5 million pensioners do not get the full pension, or even any pension at all, and men aged 60 to 65 will all lose out completely under the Tory policy—all because there is no new money. It is almost tempting to go canvassing with a Conservative to find out how that goes down on the doorsteps.
We know that there is no new money because the shadow Chancellor has said so, and he should know. It is becoming increasingly obvious to those of us who attend Prime Minister's Question Time and note that the shadow Chancellor sits one step further away from the Leader of the Opposition each time, that he is becoming acutely aware of the problem that he faces: £16 billion-worth of cuts to find, and more and more spending commitments being made here, there and everywhere. He knows that his sums do not add up.
We know that the Conservatives are dedicated to cutting public expenditure because of the policies to which they have committed themselves. So there would be no extra money to look after pensioners, disabled people and carers, just as there was no money to do so during the 18 years in which the Tories were in power. We know what they would do—there would be no new money for pensioners, for children, for families and for people with disabilities or their carers.
There is a clear choice to be made between us and the Conservative party. That choice is becoming clearer day by day. Poverty, inequality and division do not happen by accident. They happened as a result of the deliberate decisions that the Tories took over 18 years, and if they got the chance, they would do exactly the same again.
We will tackle poverty and inequality because not doing so is indefensible in the 21st century. We believe in opportunity for everyone—a fair and more just society. The measures that I have announced today will help deliver that promise. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. David Willetts: I shall begin by reducing what might otherwise be the high drama of this occasion by saying that the Opposition will not vote against the uprating of benefits. We shall wait to see whether the Liberal Democrats repeat the mistake that they made last year, but this will not be a nail-biting debate because we do not want to stand in the way of pensioners receiving the uprating in their benefits. Perhaps we are enjoying the spirit of Christmas, as the debate on such measures is taking place a little earlier than usual.
I have some specific criticisms of the measures. We are worried about the position of people in care homes. In fact, we are worried about the Government's treatment of those people generally, because the Government do not seem to understand their interests or problems. We are concerned about the possible long-term implications of what the Secretary of State calls the simplification of rates in the minimum income guarantee.
I shall not go through all of our specific concerns, but I shall try to price out exactly the strategy that lies behind the various measures under debate. Our frustration is that, in debating with the Secretary of State, it is difficult to get a sense of exactly what the Government's social security strategy involves. I think that they thought that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) had a welfare strategy. He did have a strategy, but I agree with the Secretary of State: the right hon. Gentleman's figures never added up, and the strategy was never what it was cracked up to be. However, following the right hon. Gentleman's sad disappearance from the Government, we now have the Secretary of State with his head down, reading out his briefs, rather than giving us any clear sense of the direction in which they want to take the social security system.
In what direction might the social security system go for pensioners? As Christmas is coming, perhaps an illuminating way to think about that is to tell the story of the Christmas bonus—one of the few payments not being uprated. That story reveals much about the long-term problems that the Secretary of State's approach will create for the social security system. Of course, the Christmas bonus was introduced by the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). It was their special payment to help pensioners at Christmas time.
A Labour Government came into power in 1974, found that they had inherited that special payment—they probably called it a gimmick—and wondered what to do with it. Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—sadly, he is not in his


place—pressed the then Secretary of State for Social Services on what she was going to do about the payment. In a debate, she said:
there will not be a Christmas bonus. A bonus is bound to be somewhat arbitrary in coverage and excludes a number of people who benefit from a general uprating.—[Official Report, 22 May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 1624.]
The Labour Government decided that they were not going to retain the special schemes introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Instead, they would put the money into a general increase in benefits.
The trouble with special schemes is that there is no provision for their annual uprating. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked, in an earlier debate, what the value of the Christmas bonus would be if it had been uprated from its original 1972 value of £10. The answer is that by April 2000, a prices uprating would have taken its value to £76.75.
The social security system contains a series of special payments that are left over as a kind of historical deposit from different Governments trying their own special wheezes to help pensioners. They include the over-80 payment—a very good concept, but it has never been increased from 25p. That has been a source of anger and irritation to pensioners. We also have the Christmas bonus, left over from the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. No one, apart from the previous Labour Secretary of State for Social Services, has ever abolished it, and since it was reintroduced it has not been uprated. No pledge has been made to uprate the winter fuel payment. That is a political decision taken every year; I agree with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on that point. At present, the Government's official position seems to be that the payment will be cut next year from £200 to £150.
If we go on in this way, we shall have a social security system with a variety of special payments for pensioners, each with its own political or historical justification. It would be much better if all that money, and more, were put into the basic state pension. The Secretary of State fails to explain why he believes that a pension system that is growing all those extra payments for special circumstances will be superior to one in which a guaranteed amount of money is put into uprating the basic weekly state pension.

Mr. Darling: About 2.5 million people who do not receive the basic state pension receive the winter fuel payment. There are also people who do not receive the full pension. If the hon. Gentleman were to take away the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the Christmas bonus, what would be the cost of ensuring that all those affected would have the same amount of money returned to them in full?

Mr. Willetts: All the money saved would go to all pensioners in receipt of the basic state pension. That includes many pensioners who, for a variety of reasons, do not benefit from the Secretary of State's special schemes. Pensioners who are on income support, or who are having their costs met in residential accommodation or nursing homes, do not benefit from the winter fuel payment. Our payment would go to all pensioners in receipt of the contributory pension.
I heard the intervention by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about television licences, and I understand all the arguments pro and con. However, many pensioners over 75 live in a household with someone under 75, who would normally pay for the TV licence. Therefore, the chances of the free TV licence bringing an extra £104 to every pensioner over 75 are, sadly, limited. For example, many pensioners live with a son or daughter, who normally pays for a licence. Are those sons or daughters likely to say to their elderly parents, "Here's £104, because we now have the benefit of your free TV licence"? Our proposal is simpler and more straightforward, and will reach pensioners who do not enjoy the benefit of the winter fuel payment or the free TV licence.

Mr. Darling: I might have missed something, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman answered my question. Some 2.5 million people who receive the winter fuel payment and the other payments do not have a full pension; some of them have no pension. Will the value of all the benefits—the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the Christmas bonus—be restored to them in full?

Mr. Willetts: I have made it clear that our policy is for all people in receipt of the basic pension. There would be a full uprating for pensioners who are not receiving the full value of the basic pension. The costing of our proposal includes giving the full increase to all pensioners who receive the partial or full value of the contributory pension. That is our policy. It has a much greater logic than the various special schemes—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) should remember that parliamentary private secretaries are meant to be silent, certainly when they are sitting down.

Mr. Willetts: They should be seen and not heard.
We should compare the distributional consequences of our measure, which would go to all pensioners in receipt of the basic pension, including those who receive it at less than full value. It would help pensioners who, for various reasons, will not benefit in full, or even partially, from the Secretary of State's proposals. For example, pensioners in sheltered accommodation pay a reduced rate of £5 for a television licence, but the full value of the increase would be consolidated into their basic pension. Out package would also help pensioners in residential accommodation and nursing homes. It is better designed than the schemes that it would replace.

Mr. Winnick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that people who receive the full pension often pay tax, and will therefore have to pay tax on the additional sums, which are now tax free? What would a Tory Government's approach be to people who are not entitled to the state pension? Presumably, his package would mean that they would not receive a penny of what is being provided by the television licence scheme and the winter fuel allowance.

Mr. Willetts: On the second point, I explained that our package is for people in receipt of the contributory


pension. The hon. Gentleman has studied the subject for many years. If we compare the various groups who, for whatever reason, will not be able to participate fully in the Government's special schemes, but who would benefit from a substantial increase in the basic pension, we will find that overall, the distribution of that package would be more beneficial than the alternatives, because it would go to every pensioner.
As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear in his original statement that we recognise that, although the special payments are tax exempt, the basic pension is taxable. That is why we have said from day one that we would adjust tax allowances, which we could do by using the device of the age allowance for pensioners. Therefore, the package would not increase the tax taken from pensioners. I regret the fact that the Secretary of State goes on and on as if we had never said that. The costings of our proposal show that there is no special device to collect extra tax from pensioners to help finance it. It is straightforward and simple.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Has the hon. Gentleman agreed that policy with the shadow Chancellor? What is the estimated cost of the package?

Mr. Willetts: I am pleased to say that the package was agreed with the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition before we launched it. The point is that it is tax neutral. No extra tax would be taken from pensioners, so no one would be worse off. That is what we announced on day one, and it remains our policy. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) seems to be baffled by that. I should be happy to take a further intervention, but ours is a straightforward position, and I am grateful to him for giving me yet another opportunity to make it clear.
The real task is not only to tackle pensioner poverty now but to try to ensure that the next generation of pensioners is not in poverty. Above all, we must encourage more funded pension provision. Perhaps the most worrying economic statistic under this Government is the savings ratio—the percentage of income that pensioners are saving. I am pleased to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) here because it gives me a chance to praise his record as Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he left office in the second quarter of 1997, households were saving 10.7 per cent. of their income. That figure has fallen to 3 per cent. That statistic is very worrying because it means that future generations of pensioners will retire with an income much lower than they expected. I support the Government's pension statements initiative. It is a useful measure to try to encourage people to understand what the value of their total pension package may be when they retire.
The evidence shows, however, that over the past few years there has been a significant decline in occupational pension provision. The average number of occupational pension schemes being set up each year has fallen from 9,000, when we were in office, to fewer than 5,000 since 1997. In 1999, only 3,000 schemes were set up. In addition, 14 per cent. of final salary schemes are closed to new members. The number of personal pensions being taken out is declining.
The combination of the extra tax that the Government have imposed on pensions, and planning blight as people wait for the arrival of stakeholder pensions, means that

we face a significant decline in funded pensions. The danger is that although we in this country have been complacently patting ourselves on the back because our funded pension provision is way ahead of that on the continent, the boot may soon be on the other foot.
I will make a modest bet with the Secretary of State that if we carry on at this rate, within a few years the annual flow into funded pension savings in Germany will exceed that in Britain. The right hon. Gentleman, or any subsequent Secretary of State, will then be under understandable pressure to introduce yet more special schemes or other measures to increase state benefit income for pensioners, because they will not have enough pension savings of their own. That is the long-term problem that we face, and far from tackling it, the Government have, if anything, exacerbated it through regulatory complexity, planning blight and extra tax.
What is the Secretary of State's agenda? Whenever I refer to all the changes that are due in 2003, he looks rather baffled. I wonder how many Labour Members are fully aware of what is supposed to happen in 2003. It is frustrating that the only explanation the Government have given us of those proposed changes is Treasury working paper No. 5, from November 1999, "Supporting Children Through the Tax and Benefit System". There is a much consulted chart, which all the pundits love, on page 40, with graphs showing the current and new arrangements for financial support for children.
The Chairman of the Social Security Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is in his place, and I am pleased that the Committee is conducting a study of that important subject. We face turbulence in the benefits system because the Secretary of State hopes, within one year, not only to introduce a pensioner credit but to abolish the working families tax credit and introduce a new integrated child credit and an employment tax credit. There will be considerable confusion.
Those charts in the Treasury working paper show the point at which welfare reform disappears up its own rear because the second chart has exactly the same distributional effect as the first, but is achieved by a different means. The game of going through all those changes simply to deliver to every family exactly the same income as they get at the moment, but through a radically changed organisation, does not seem worth the candle. Coming up with a different way to deliver exactly the same distribution of benefits is a perverse and unnecessary exercise.
I presume that the Government are embarking on the exercise only because they want to change some of the ways in which people gain from taxation and benefits. I think that they will encounter a paradox. Their main additional proposal is the employment tax credit, which is received by people in work on low earnings, regardless of whether they have children. Therefore the main distributional impact of measures that are supposed to help children will be to extend a benefit to low earners without children.
The Secretary of State might disagree, but I think that he will find that the main impact of introducing the so-called family package in 2003 will be to help people without children—that is where the additional expenditure is likely to be made. I see him shake his head, but he intends to introduce an employment tax credit, and he will


not be able to withhold it from people who do not have children, so they are likely to be the recipients of the extra expenditure in 2003.

Mr. Darling: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's interesting lecture. Our strategy is quite clear. He asks about in-work measures. We want to make sure that work pays, but we inherited the problem that many people were better off on benefits than in work. That is the logic behind an earnings tax credit. We also want to do more for families, especially those on modest or low incomes, who have children, while working towards achieving our objective of reducing child poverty. That is the logic behind the child credit. Rather than engage in academic debate, the hon. Gentleman should face up to his own problem, which is that he cannot give more money to eradicate child poverty, nor allocate the funds necessary to make sure that work pays, because he is committed to making massive cuts in public spending.

Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State might think that the debate is academic, but all I am trying to do is elicit from him a coherent statement. His Department has never issued anything to tell us what he thinks is the purpose behind all the changes that the Government hope to introduce in 2003. He talks as if no help has ever been given to families on low incomes, but it has—family credit, for example. All the changes that he plans to implement will do is deliver to the person in work the money that family credit would have delivered to the caring parent. It is doubtful that there is any purpose in changing the delivery system in that way.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows the history of the Labour party in this respect. It is ironic that what he thinks he is doing by making these radical reforms—although perhaps the Chancellor is behind them—is exactly the same as what the Labour Government tried to do in 1964. Lord Houghton was going to be the man who integrated tax and benefits, and he worked on it for years. The Secretary of State should read Richard Crossman's explanations of what went wrong as the Labour Government wasted years trying to integrate tax and benefits. They even had a precursor to stakeholders, in the form of "superfunds", which were going to encourage more funded pensions among those who did not have funded pension schemes.
Labour Governments have been through all that before, and I tell the right hon. Gentleman that tax-benefits integration will not deliver what he thinks it will. He cannot sit on his hands and say that everything comes down to the Treasury, or that I am delivering a merely academic lecture. In 2003, he will implement massive changes in the British tax and benefits system for which no person in his Department has ever offered any coherent explanation or justification. The right hon. Gentleman cannot wash his hands of the matter; it will come back to haunt him.
Oddly enough, an alternative strategy rests on an insight from Beveridge himself: that targeting is not the same as means-testing. Means-testing, either in the traditional way through benefits or through the tax system, is not the only way in which to target assistance on families and other groups who need help. If the categories of recipient are defined carefully enough, categorical

benefits can be distributed in a way that is quite well targeted. That is why, before I became a Member of Parliament, I argued that help should be focused on families with children younger than five. Families with younger children tend to be those on low incomes. We know also that poorer pensioners tend to be older pensioners. That is why the help in our package is especially focused on the over-75s. If those elementary age rules are used, we could achieve quite good targeting without means-testing.

Mr. Webb: The hen. Gentleman has had an influence on my thinking on this issue. That is partly why Liberal Democrats advocate serious pension rises for older pensioners. The only respect in which the hon. Gentleman's policy does more for the over-75s is the fact that he would replace in cash the benefit that they get in kind. It would not give a penny extra to the over-75s.

Mr. Willetts: There are two ways in which our policy does help the over-75s more. As I have said, there are a significant number of pensioners over 75 who are not paying for their television licences, whereas they would all get the pension. Secondly, we have tried to direct the extra £320 million that we would gain from savings elsewhere in the social security system to the over-75s in particular. I think that the philosophy that lies behind the original higher rate fir the over-80s, like that in respect of the over-75s, is correct.

Mr. Darling: If we are to have an academic seminar—and as there are only a few of us in the Chamber, we might as well go down that route—let us take a pensioner over 75 who currently receives no pension, or even a part pension. The hon. Gentleman admitted a short while ago that that pensioner will not get a penny from what the Tories propose, because they will take away the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the Christmas bonus. I suspect that quite a few over-75s do not get a pension for historical reasons, and they will lose out. What the hon. Gentleman has said is not true.

Mr. Willetts: Our package applies to all pensioners, including those with only a partial pension.

Mr. Darling: What about pensioners with no pension?

Mr. Willetts: The right hon. Gentleman talks about those with no pension. I might as well ask about those who do not pay for their television licences. What about those who are not benefiting from the winter fuel payment? Our package puts all the money into the basic state pension, and there is also the minimum income guarantee—that is the old income support, which was renamed—for pensioners regardless of whether they have a basic pension.

Mr. Darling: There are about 500,000 pensioners who do not get a pension, and the hon. Gentleman will take seven quid a week from them. That is the logic of what he is saying.

Mr. Willetts: The right hon. Gentleman is talking as if his package will somehow help every pensioner. He should remember the shambles of the early years of the implementation of the winter fuel payment. The


Government had to track down a pensioner unit—a concept hitherto unknown to the social security system—so that each of them could have a winter fuel payment. There are problems for pensioners in nursing homes, and, as I have said, for pensioners who are not paying for their television licence.
The right hon. Gentleman's proposals are not universal, but he is talking as if they were. Our proposals cover every pensioner in receipt of the basic state pension. The right hon. Gentleman talks all the time as if the Government had put a great deal of money into helping the poorest pensioners, but the vast majority of their expenditure has not gone into the minimum income guarantee. Instead, it has gone into a variety of schemes, whose distribution impact is, to say the least, difficult to assess, because they do not amount to a straightforward package for every pensioner in receipt of the basic pension.
I shall finish with some other quick points. I am taking the opportunity of the debate—the attendance is less than massive—to try to tease out from the Secretary of State what he is trying to do with social security. I have talked about means-testing and about what will happen in 2003. It is frustrating that we do not seem to be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to offer a statement on the position in 2003. It is ironic that the best explanation that he can find of the case for tax benefit integration and tax credit is the Green Paper written by my distinguished colleague Lord Higgins, who is the Opposition's spokesman on these matters. He wrote the Heath Government's Green Paper in 1971, and it still remains a more articulate, better argued, more coherent and wider-ranging account of the case for tax credits and tax-benefit integration than anything that we have had from the Government. Such is the irony of political debate.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to poverty several times. I draw his attention to what I am sure many people are talking about in connection with the Government's initiatives. There is a problem in social security, and more widely; in fact, it is to be found in the Government's social policy initiatives as a whole. That is the extraordinary number of new schemes and special schemes that are introduced, supposedly with the aim of helping the most deprived parts of the country.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Ministers' motives when they say that they are trying to help the most deprived areas. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we have an extraordinary variety of such schemes—I am aware that they are not all DSS schemes. We have employment zones, education action zones and health action zones—and I believe that there are other zones. The previous Government needed a cone line, and the present Government should have a zone line, so that we can make a telephone call if we spot another zone.
The problem with all these zones is that there is no consistency between them. There is no correlation between area-based initiatives in different areas and how they score in terms of any objective measure of deprivation. In August 1997, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), announced the setting up of the social exclusion unit. It was probably a bid to get on

to Labour's National Executive Committee, and I think that he failed—but he said that the case for the unit was as follows:
There is a proliferation of programmes with insufficient collaboration between the different agencies involved at national, local, and area level. As a result we are spending vast sums of money, often over and over again on the same people through different programmes, without improving their ability to participate in the economy and society.
That was the critique with which the right hon. Gentleman launched the social exclusion unit in the summer of 1997.
However, two years later, when the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit reported, it said:
the clear evidence from those on the ground and from the PIU's own analysis is that there are too many Government initiatives, causing confusion; not enough co-ordination; and too much time spent on negotiating the system, rather than delivering.
Labour Members should reflect on the experience of those who are doing their best in the most deprived areas. These people tell us over and over again that there is initiative fatigue. They say that they are spending all their time bidding for penny packets under a variety of initiatives that are often not coherently put together. Instead of the competent delivery of core programmes, people are spending too much time chasing individual schemes that have been launched to get 48 hours of media coverage. Insufficient attention is paid to how they can be competently delivered.

Mr. Darling: This will be my final intervention, because we seem to have left benefit uprating way behind. I assume that Conservative Members find themselves in complete agreement with everything that the Government are doing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that what matters is the outcome of policies. We will take 1 million children out of poverty as a result of what we are doing. Education standards are improving, and 1 million more people are in work. That is all the result both of our general policies and of some of the particular policies to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. His problem is that he is committed to cutting public expenditure and investment by £16 billion. Were he to return to office, we would face exactly the same problems that we inherited, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland described in 1997.

Mr. Willetts: Before the right hon. Gentleman speaks so complacently about the Government's record, he should read, if he has not yet done so, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation publication of only a week or so ago. It assesses the Government's record on social exclusion. [Interruption.] That document is an assessment of the Government's record, based on the fullest information that the foundation had. The right hon. Gentleman has no extra information that was not available to those who produced the report. It covers everything, from help from social services for pensioners living at home, and the number of pensioners with no income other than state benefits, to the position of children, including the poorest children in our society.
In many instances, the foundation identified either no change or a worsening trend. The trend of low-birthweight babies is worsening. Before the right hon. Gentleman becomes complacent about what is going on, he should take account of the best external independent audit of the Government's record on poverty and social exclusion,


because poverty and social exclusion are an important benchmark of the effectiveness of all the Government's special schemes. The fact that I make these criticisms of the Government's approach—the flurry of initiatives within the DSS, and more widely across Government, getting in the way of what matters—should not be taken by the Secretary of State as evidence that I think that everything in the benefit uprating is marvellous or brilliant.
Like the troops fraternising as they emerged from the trenches on Christmas day in 1914, I was trying to take the opportunity of the privacy of this debate, before the House rises for Christmas, to raise one or two wider questions about social policy and the Government's approach.

Mr. Darling: rose—

Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State wants to intervene again. We must be setting a record. Of course I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Darling: Even in the spirit of Christmas, the hon. Gentleman will not get away with that nonsense about the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report. As the authors freely acknowledge, the report does not cover many of the measures that we introduced over the past two years. If the hon. Gentleman read the report, he would see that many of the things about which it complains, such as the increase in poverty and disadvantage, happened during the time that the Conservatives were in government and he was a Minister.
I am happy to be judged on what we have done during this first Parliament, and I hope that we will get the opportunity to be judged as a result of what we do in a second Parliament. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, far from acknowledging that poverty had to be tackled and eradicated, one of my predecessors, now Lord Moore, spent some time trying to prove that poverty did not exist. No wonder the Tories did nothing about it.

Mr. Willetts: I see the Government Whip looking restless, as he has a train to catch, so I shall not go further down that route. More of my speech has been taken up with the Secretary of State's interventions than with my remarks about social policy.
Had we had more time, we might have debated some of the other things that the Secretary of State is doing, in the absence of any coherent overall approach to social policy, any coherent statement about what the Government are trying to do in 2003, or any serious attempt to learn one of the most important lessons that can be learned from Beveridge about how to target assistance on the people who most need it. We have had no clear and authoritative statement of what will happen to the organisation of the Department. I will watch with great interest to see what happens as the right hon. Gentleman tries, for example, to merge the work for unemployed people done by the Department for Education and Employment with that done by the Department of Social Security. However, that is a matter for a separate debate.
We will not oppose the uprating, although we have various specific criticisms of it. I wish the Secretary of State and his team, the House, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a merry Christmas.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: In his speech, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) attacked the Government's record on dealing with poverty. When we reflect on what the Government have achieved in their first Parliament, we can rightly be proud of the anti-poverty measures that they have introduced. A key feature of the uprating order, which we cannot discuss in detail in the time available, is that it is part of the welfare reform programme that the Government are pursuing.
Without a fundamental reform of the welfare system, the poverty that has blighted many of our communities for so long will continue. When we examine the benefits system and see the people who have been entitled to benefits, it is clear that without reform of the system we would merely have continued to pay people benefits. In five years, their children would have been on benefit, and in 20 years their grandchildren would have been on benefit. The culture of benefit dependency in some communities would be perpetuated. That has been one of the factors driving me on in politics.
The welfare system cannot carry on confirming people in poverty; radical reform is necessary. That is the purpose of the range of measures that the Government have introduced, particularly those designed to get people back into work. That is fundamental to tackling poverty. We must help people back into work, and at the same time ensure that those who remain on benefit have security.
The benefit uprating package is a part of a radical programme of which the Government can be proud, especially as it sets about challenging the culture of dependency.
I shall deal first with pensions. The Government have produced a programme of measures to help pensioners. As is well known by those of us who attend debates such as this—one always seems to see the same faces—one of the Government's priorities was to tackle pensioner poverty. I support that, My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in detail the increased help available to the poorest pensioners as a result of the measures that we have taken.
The minimum income guarantee included in the uprating order will bring about significant increases for the poorest single pensioners and pensioner couples. One of the criticisms of the minimum income guarantee is that it rewards the feckless who have not bothered to save for their retirement, but it is clear from the profile of the poorest pensioners that they are mostly the oldest pensioners and mostly women who have had no opportunity to build up a contribution record.
I do not believe that the vast majority of people who depend on the minimum income guarantee are those who have not bothered to save for retirement. They deserve our support. If the welfare state means anything, it must mean supporting such people. The minimum income guarantee is one of the ways in which the Government have tried to help those at the bottom of the income scale in their old age.
One of the problems associated with such a benefit is the difficulty of getting people who are entitled to it to claim it. It might help if we spoke about it differently


in the House and told people that the minimum income guarantee was part of the welfare state. People who shrink from claiming means-tested benefit do not have the same problem when it comes to claiming housing benefit or council tax benefit, which are also means-tested benefits. We must persuade people that if they are not embarrassed to claim those benefits and do not feel that that is scrounging from the state, they should have the same attitude to the MIG, which is also part of the welfare state and for which they have built up an entitlement over their lifetime.

Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that we should be more proactive in telling people about their entitlement? The Government have had a carefully planned programme to tell people, through the Employment Service or the Benefits Agency, what they should be claiming.

Mr. Coaker: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Often, the Government do not get the credit for what they are doing. I know that, as a Back Bencher, I would say that. When the Government introduce the pension age agency, that will also make an immense difference. It will be dedicated to provision and support for pensioners and elderly people. One of the things that elderly people tell me is that they do not like the DSS Alice because they associate it with people who are out of work. The change in the delivery of benefits for the elderly will help to get people to claim those to which they are entitled. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to talk about the minimum income guarantee as an entitlement that people can claim without feeling guilty, just as they do not feel guilty about claiming council tax benefit or housing benefit, even though those benefits are also means-tested.

Mr. Webb: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is talking a lot of sense. Is he disappointed that more progress has not been made on the following matter? It is true that lots of pensioners do not mind claiming rent rebate and council tax benefit. Evidence shows that half the pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled claim housing benefit or council tax benefit. As they have to give all the information necessary to calculate their income support to claim housing benefit, is the hon. Gentleman disappointed about that and will he do something to ensure that his colleagues—who, on the whole, do not listen to me—get those two systems together? That has been going on for years, but all the information is already in the system. We do not need a separate system, because the information is there; it simply needs to be passed on so that pensioners can get the money.

Mr. Coaker: That is a fair comment. Anything that would increase the number of people claiming an entitlement is important. The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do, that there are experiments throughout the country in which local authority housing benefit officials are working with DSS officials in DSS offices to try to do that. It is perfectly sensible so to marry the available information that we get the money to those people who need it.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I, too, agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He put his finger on

one problem when he said that claiming the minimum income guarantee is a matter of practical difficulties and a philosophical problem for a lot of pensioners. I agree that it is a philosophical problem, but is it likely that pensioners can be persuaded out of that?

Mr. Coaker: Again, that is a fair comment. It is possible to persuade people out of that, but Members of Parliament and people outside will have to adopt a different attitude to the MIG. We must continue to argue that people should claim housing benefit and council tax benefit, which are means-tested benefits but do not have the same stigma. There might be a philosophical problem, and we all encounter that in our surgeries. However, if we talk about the MIG as an entitlement that people have built up in their lifetime, just as they have built up their entitlement to access to other welfare state benefits, we can go a long way to achieving that aim. There are practical difficulties with getting people to claim, and we need to continue to search for ways to overcome that.
We have made progress on other measures for pensioners. The winter fuel payment and free TV licences are important. Before becoming a Member of Parliament I was aware that people felt strongly about the winter fuel payment. They demanded that the Government do something, as they felt that it was wrong that individuals were frightened to turn their fire on in winter. The Government have attempted to address that. They told people that they would make a special payment so that they need not be frightened to heat their home and turn on the fire. That is not a gimmick, but a sensible response to something that was being demanded of all of us when we looked at the problems faced by pensioners trying to heat their homes in winter.
The pension credit builds on the pension reforms in the uprating report. When people study the pension credit, they will see it as another part of the Government's reform programme for pensioners. It is easiest to describe it as almost a reverse income tax. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right that pensioners and elderly people want to be rewarded for their saving and do not want to be penalised for thrift. We would all agree that we need to address that important matter. The pension credit will bring people up to a minimum income and will pay them for the savings that they have accumulated or their small occupational pension, which will be seen as another important stage in our reforms.
People also feel particularly strongly about the unfairness of capital limits, whereby a small amount of money disqualifies individuals from entitlement to a range of other benefits. I am pleased that capital benefits will be raised in April to £6,000 and £12,000, and abolished altogether in 2003. Again, that sends out an important message that, having started with poorer pensioners and having reformed occupational pensions, the Government are looking to reform the pension credit as well. The Government are delivering a package of systematic and affordable step-by-step reforms.
It is important to recognise that the uprating report includes considerable increases for some of the poorest families with children with disabilities. The child premium on income support for a disabled child will go up from £22.50 to £30, which is £7.40 a week more than the normal uprating and will be a significant improvement for those people. Throughout the country, 80,000 children will benefit from that. The disability income guarantee


will ensure that none of the poorest families has an income of less than £142 a week for single people and £186.60 for couples. Again, the Government are delivering for some of the poorest people in the most difficult circumstances. As with the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, we need to talk about the disability income guarantee as an important benefit to which people with disabilities are entitled and which the Government have provided as an important element in the welfare state.
Carers can be pleased that the carer premium on income support will be increased. Again, the Government made a pledge to do something to support carers, and the premium will be raised by £10 to £24.40. An estimated 200,000 carers on low incomes will be supported as a result of that.
I have talked about increases in benefits and important changes made by the Government. We all recognise that, if we strip away the politics and the political point scoring, the benefits often go to very poor people, who are in exceptionally difficult circumstances. I say to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), that we must keep an eye on the level of all benefits, as one sometimes thinks, "My God, is somebody having to live on that money, which is not an exceptional amount?" I think Members on both sides of the House could agree with that statement. In particular, we need to stay focused on the level of two significant benefits in the uprating: the disability living allowance and the attendance allowance. Those benefits are extremely important for the way in which society is developing, as there are people with all sorts of different care needs. I know from my mother-in-law's experience with attendance allowance that it is an important benefit.

Mr. Willetts: In asking the hon. Gentleman a question, I am also looking to the Minister, who will reply to our debate. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the value of benefits. Of course, it is important that benefits for disabled people are delivered competently and promptly. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as I am, about the increasing evidence of delays in getting attendance allowance to claimants and an apparent deterioration in performance evident from the unacceptable periods that people have to wait, especially if they appeal against a decision not to allow them benefit?

Mr. Coaker: We are all concerned. That is not a political point, as we are all anxious about unnecessary delay. I am sure that, as a constituency Member of Parliament, the Minister sees constituents who are worried about things that sometimes go wrong with the system. Of course, that is important, and we must make sure that the benefit system delivers to those people as quickly, effectively and efficiently as possible. My point is that the level of those benefits is crucial to some people who are living in very difficult circumstances.
I am delighted with the extension of disability living allowance to three and four-year-old children. Before the change, many of us had experiences of those children being excluded from the DLA provision. I also welcome the extension of incapacity benefit to young people under 20.
The uprating order deals with huge amounts of public money. We have had a good debate on the reforms and on what the benefits should be. The welfare state, as it is currently constituted, has contributed significantly to the society in which we live, but it cannot remain static and must change with the times. It must reflect the development of society. There will always be debate about the reforms that are required to achieve that, but I am proud that the Government are consistent and have remained true to the principles of the welfare state, while recognising that it needs to be changed and modernised.
I am pleased that the desire to help the poorest people first is at the heart of our welfare changes. I am pleased also that those changes relate not only to the payment of benefits, but are also about looking at our society and challenging the culture of dependency. They are about telling communities where large numbers of people have not worked for years and many families have existed on benefit for a long time that we must try to get people off benefits and into work while providing support for those who must remain on benefit.
In future, we will look back at a radical Government with radical policies who have brought about genuine change. There will be differences of opinion on how such change can be achieved, but today's debate will contribute to the reform process, which is, above all, about how to do the most that we can for some of the poorest people in society and tackling the problems of social exclusion that we see around us.

Mr. Steve Webb: I begin by apologising to the House. As I am feeling slightly under the weather, I might not be present for all the subsequent contributions. Indeed, I might have to curtail my remarks, although it has struck me that no one would object if I did so. I suppose that I should not worry too much about courtesy, as the Secretary of State did his usual trick and did not even stay to listen to the first speech made by a Labour Back Bencher. Obviously, he does not think that he has anything to learn from any hon. Member, which is regrettable.
I do not want to keep the House in suspense any longer, so I inform hon. Members that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats will seek to press the motion to a Division. This debate is a good opportunity to discuss the question of where the system is going and to exchange some ideas, as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) tried to do, so it is unfortunate that the House has been treated in a regrettable manner.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) used an interesting phrase in his contribution, which was, as ever, thoughtful and considered. He referred to a package of systematic, step-by-step reforms. The word "systematic" is the one word that I would not use about the Government's welfare reform process. Instead, I would use the phrase "make it up as you go along", for reasons that I shall expand, especially in relation to pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security, is considering in depth the strategy for families with children, so I shall touch only briefly on that matter.
With regard to pensioners, the Government have a story. It sounds at first as if something coherent is going on, but the more I consider their policies, the less sure I


am that much coherence exists. After the election, the first announcement that the Government made was that the minimum income guarantee—as income support was renamed—would rise in line with earnings. Few people disagree that the level was too low and that extra support for poorer pensioners was needed, so I associate myself with that decision, which was the first step. However, the next step was curious.
In the winter, the Chancellor found some spare cash that had been released by an underspend on his EU contribution, or something similar, and he wondered what to do with it. He decided to make a winter fuel payment to pensioners. The House may forget that it was introduced at £20. The policy was met with a fanfare, although I suspect that a similar payment would now cause a riot. The amount for those on income support was £50. The argument for that was that it targeted more help on those in need.
There is a fundamental inconsistency in the Government's strategy. Depending on whether there is an "r" in the month, they focus either on helping the folk who are most in need or on giving universal support as a way of providing tax-free help to everybody. A policy of granting a tax-free £200 payment to every household in the land is as untargeted as possible. However, when the Liberal Democrats said that 75p was not enough and asked the Government why they were not paying more, they told us that a general increase in the pension would be poorly targeted and that they wanted to spend money on those in need. They are facing both ways at the same time, and have done so throughout.
The Government could have said that they needed a mix, that they were only partly targeting those who were most in need and that pensioners as a group needed to do better. One might have had more sympathy with such a view. When it suited them, as it did with the 75p payment, they said that they had to help those who were most in need. When an election is imminent, however, they grant a winter fuel payment of £200.
When I questioned the rate of the winter fuel payment for the coming year and said that it would fall from £200 to £150, a few hon. Members queried that, and said that it could not be right. The hon. Member for Havant has asked about that. I do not know whether he has seen a written answer published this morning in response to a question that he tabled. He may not have spotted it, but I had nothing better to do over breakfast. He asked about the rate of the winter fuel payment next year. His question received the following opaque reply:
The level of the Winter Fuel Payment for next winter … is set out in The Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment and Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 2000, and is included in the Government's spending plans.—[Official Report, 20 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 224W.]
There is a shorter version of that answer, but I think that it was felt to be embarrassing. I went to the Vote Office to obtain a copy of the regulations to which the answer referred. Initially, the document was unavailable, so one senses that there has not been a big demand for it. On finally obtaining it, I saw that in a paragraph of the regulations that set out the winter fuel payment, it stated:
there shall be substituted the sum "£ 150

I always try to be fair to the Chancellor, so I remind hon. Members that when he announced the £200 winter fuel payment figure in the pre-Budget statement, he said that it was a special payment for this year. I am not questioning that.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Then why are you giving the wrong impression?

Mr. Webb: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain my point.
The Government's pensions strategy, such as it is, is all heading towards 2003. Everything between now and 2003 is described as transitional. In other words, the Government are introducing measures for the next two years, until they can get the new system in place. Thus, a big pension rise has been announced for next April and an above-inflation rise has been announced for the following year, albeit only a pound or so. Why, then, is the winter fuel payment not also dealt with transitionally? Why does it not apply for two years at the £200 level? The answer is that, between this winter and next winter, something will happen.
I think that that approach is extraordinarily cynical. Pensioners have seen the winter fuel payment move from £20 to £100 to £200. If we went out into the streets and asked pensioners to predict next winter's fuel payment, I suspect that we would not find one who would expect the Government to cut it by a quarter. Clearly, that message has not been conveyed. Will the Under-Secretary tell us whether pensioners were notified when they received this year's winter fuel payment that it would be cut next winter? Do pensioners know? I suspect that they do not. It is cynical to increase a benefit immediately before an election, to cut it afterwards and to hope that nobody will ask the awkward question.
The hon. Member for Havant spoke about what his party wanted to do with the winter fuel payment. I have a point for him to cogitate about on Boxing day. He announced that, were he given the opportunity to do so, he would introduce not the £5 increase to which the order refers but a £9.50 increase. I think that that is the figure for newly retired pensioners. Roughly speaking, that sum comprises the fiver that the Government are giving anyway, four quid for winter fuel and 50p for which the hon. Gentleman has scrabbled around in the social fund and elsewhere. However, if the Government provide not £4 a week but £3 a week—the hon. Gentleman has discovered that that is what they plan to do—the Conservatives could afford not £9.50 on the pension but £8.50. That applies unless the hon. Gentleman can find £1 a week for every pensioner household in the land, which amounts, I think, to £500 million. I shall have a word with the shadow Chancellor. I will tell him that he must either find another £500 million for the hon. Member for Havant or announce a smaller pension increase than he planned.

Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Government have got into an extraordinary position in respect of the £200 and £150 payments. The Opposition's package consolidates the £200 into the basic pension and then uprates it. We have formulated the package on that basis, and it has been agreed with my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. The problem with special payments is


that they are not included in the basic pension and there is no requirement to uprate them. Thus, in some years they are not uprated and in others they are cut. Indeed, the Government's official position, on which I have received a more explicit written answer than that to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is that they will cut the rate next year.

Mr. Webb: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, unless he thinks that the general election will take place in the current financial year, which I assume he does not. Let us assume that the general election will happen in May. Government spending plans for 2001–02 include a winter fuel payment of £150. Consolidating that in the pension, if that is what he proposes, represents £8.50, not £9.50. Strictly speaking, I am straying somewhat, so I return to the orders.
Another issue relating to the pensions strategy is take-up. It was clear on Monday that the Secretary of State was trying to run a line. I accept unreservedly and on the record that there is a role for means-testing—there always will be. I do not query that, but balance is important. We have criticised him for using an approach that relies so heavily on means-testing. He says that the Government have put a lot of money into the means test, which is true. When we ask about those who do not take up benefits, the Government refer to the take-up campaign. However, there is less to the campaign than meets the eye.
The Government sent letters to 2 million people offering free money. A third replied. Of that third, it appears that about 60,000 or 70,000—perhaps a few more—have received their money. Government figures suggest that 500,000 pensioners are not taking up their entitlement to income support, and Thora Hird and friends have reached 70,000 of those. That leaves 430,000. The Secretary of State's line is that there is no stigma in the mind of pensioners about applying for income support, but 2 million pensioners received a letter offering them free money and two thirds did not reply. To me, that suggests that fear of complexity and stigma may be out there, alive and well. Even on Government estimates, and even with the 70,000 taken off the figure, 430,000 pensioners entitled to income support are not receiving it. Almost all of them have received a letter from the Government telling them about their entitlement, but have not responded.
I would be interested to hear from the Government about those 430,000 people. Presuming that most received the letter, why did they not respond? What aspect of the system put them off replying?

Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time, because I know that he follows these issues carefully.
There is another puzzle that the Minister might tackle in his winding-up speech. The hon. Gentleman assumes that 500,000 pensioners are entitled to but not claiming the minimum income guarantee, but if he reads the Government's annual statistics on entitlements to means-tested benefits he will find that they have retrospectively reduced their estimate. Before the figure of 500,000 gains currency, it is worth remembering that,

until recently, the Government estimate was, from memory, about 500,000 to 800,000. They have cut their estimate of the number of non-claiming pensioners for reasons that are not entirely clear.

Mr. Webb: At the risk of allowing the debate to degenerate even further into an academic seminar, I think that the Government have discovered that pensioners are under-reporting their capital in the family resources survey. Therefore, they are making a further adjustment. The 500,000 figure is the mid-point of the current range of estimates, but in opposition Labour went into the election campaign having a go at the Tories about the missing million. The figure of 1 million was at the top of the range, but the Government now tend to use the middle figure, which is much more sensible.
Will Ministers discuss take-up with their officials, many of whom I used to work with on take-up statistics at the Institute for Fiscal Studies? Will Ministers consider whether more resources might be provided to bring the take-up figures up to date? We have only just received take-up figures for 1998–99, although we have received the 1999–2000 poverty figures—those for households below average income. I appreciate that extra processing has to be done between getting the survey and producing both the HBAI figures and the take-up figures, but, given that take-up is central to the Government's means-testing strategy and that we rely on figures that they say are years out of date, that is unsatisfactory. I hope that they will consider the timeliness of the take-up figures, especially as the take-up campaigns are taking place now. Whenever we criticise the Government's figures, we are told that they are out of date. Well, that is not our fault.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for being absent for the early part of the debate.
The take-up figures are behind time, but the take-up campaign marks the difference between the past and the present. It is freely admitted that all past take-up figures and those in the system are estimates based on statistical surveys, not on real people. We have written to almost 2.5 million individuals by name, and that has given us a much better idea of the level of unmet need. I am not saying that the system is perfect, but although the take-up campaign will take some time, as I have acknowledged in answers to parliamentary questions, the information that we will gather as a result of it will make a big difference. All previous estimates are just that: gross statistical estimates based on small sample surveys. With the best will in the world, they do not represent real people.

Mr. Webb: One knows where the Minister is coming from, but the family resources survey, which is one of the biggest social surveys, receives responses from 25,000 households a year, and a good chunk of those are pensioner households. Every pensioner whom the survey identifies as entitled to but not receiving income support is a real person. Short of talking to all those 2.5 million people, we will never get to the whole lot. However, the survey is a legitimate way to arrive at a figure, and those who reply are real people.
I do not have a problem with the take-up campaign, but saying that it proves that there is no stigma attached to claiming puts a gloss on matters. The campaign proves the contrary; two thirds of those offered free money said


no because they were bewildered by the system or did not like the means test. The Minister shakes his head. Will he do any follow-up work or research on those who received the letter but did not reply? I hope so, because that might help to resolve the issue.
The key point is that the Government have relied heavily on means-testing, and they will double means-testing by introducing the credit. Their answer to the take-up problem is, "We have a take-up campaign." The campaign has got money to 70,000 people, whether one describes that figure as good or bad. That is great for the 70,000, but more than 400,000 people at least—that figure is still our best guess—are entitled, but not receiving. They were offered free money, but turned it down. Where do the Government go next with them?

Mr. Coaker: I tried to make a thoughtful contribution, and the hon. Gentleman is doing the same, because the matter is immensely difficult. Take-up of the minimum income guarantee is not the only problem because those who will not claim it are prepared to claim means-tested housing benefit and council tax benefit. There is also a difficulty with take-up of non-means-tested attendance allowance. That is a big issue and we all need to address the problem. The Government are trying to consider all the ways that they can of encouraging people to take up benefits, whether means-tested or non-means-tested.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of good points. Clearly there are take-up problems with non-means-tested benefits as well, and those need to be tackled. Support and advice are necessary, and I would like citizens advice bureaux to be backed by central Government at local level. It is unacceptable that local councils are left to their own devices—some help, some do not—when local citizens advice bureaux, which do a fantastic job on take-up, struggle from hand to mouth.
Heavy reliance on means-tested benefits represents a structural problem: it will hit the target for some, but miss it for others. Despite Thora Hird's best efforts, the target is being missed for 400,000 or 500,000 people who, by definition, are the poorest pensioners in the land. Their income is less than income support, which itself does not even cross the poverty line. They do not receive income support, which is why my party is committed to the basic state pension and why, like the hon. Member for Havant, we are particularly committed to increasing substantially the pension for older pensioners—not by 46p, or whatever the figure is, but by £5, £10 or £15. Older pensioners should be guaranteed that money, which is why we decided on such a strategy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The hon. Gentleman refers to three figures—£5, £10 and £15. Under the Liberals' proposals, when would each of those be introduced?

Mr. Webb: They would be introduced simultaneously. Pensioners under 75 would receive £5, those aged between 75 and 79 would receive £10 and those aged 80 and over would receive £15. That is our proposal.
For several years, I and my colleagues have argued in the House that £250 of capital for £1 a week of income is absurd, and that the capital limits discourage people.

We batted away for years, and suddenly the Secretary of State announced on Monday that the Government have always thought that the capital limit rules were silly and will now change them. We welcome the sinner repenting, but we had to put up with an awful lot of rubbish while the Government tried to defend an unjustifiable system.
There is an important practical question. Under these orders, from next April pensioners with £6,000 in the bank will not have a penny imputed from their savings. If that money is in a 5 per cent. interest account, they will get £6 a week actual income. When the Government switch over to using actual income for the purposes of assessing means-tested benefits, what will happen to those people? Will there be a £6 disregard so that no one with £6,000 capital will lose out? Have the Government decided that yet? I know that consultation is taking place. The Minister shakes his head, so perhaps the Government have not decided yet. I urge them to ensure that pensioners with modest savings who have no imputed income—even from capital of £6,000—do not lose out, particularly once the orders are in force. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that that is the Government's goal for that group. It would be perverse if the opposite were true.
The Government are still incapable of paying all pensioners their pensions on time. We have raised the NIRS2 computer problem many times in the House. These pensions increases will not reach pensioners on their pension date, in some cases because of the computer problems. After three and a half to four years, the excuse that it was the other lot's fault starts to wear a bit thin. We have been promised that this matter will be resolved by certain dates, and every one of them has been missed. I hope that as a Christmas present to Britain's pensioners, the Minister will tell us finally whether before the next election every pensioner reaching pension age will get their pension on time.
On a more upbeat note, an announcement was made during the year on the widows' state earnings-related pension scheme proposals. That was a welcome change of heart. People will not lose their inherited SERPS entitlements, provided that they have already reached pension age. I stress how much we welcome that.
The document contains many welcome measures, such as the additional support for carers and for disabled people. We welcome the £5 on the pension. It is not clear why the arguments that justify a £5 increase this year justified only 75p last year. As I have argued, the Government's strategy is incoherent and inconsistent. It would be nice to think that we will have a response to the specific points that have been raised, but experience suggests otherwise. As it is the festive season, I shall live in hope.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: The Secretary of State said that I was the only Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber. I am sorry to say that that remains the case, but I promise him that I am not a token Back Bencher, because I serve on the Select Committee on Social Security under the expert guidance of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I also served on the Standing Committee considering the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill a short while ago, so I take an interest in these matters. I do not intend to speak for


long, but I want to make a few comments about the current situation on pensions and about future pensions. I also want to refer to some of the points that the Secretary of State made. I am sorry he is not in his place to answer my points.
The more one considers an issue, such as law and order or Northern Ireland—two subjects that I am also interested in—the clearer it becomes that there is no one big answer to any of those problems, and that that is so with all aspects of social security, especially pensions. I share the Government's stated objective of relieving poverty among the poorest pensioners. Although it is difficult to define poverty, we all accept that many pensioners are poor, especially elderly women. Their position cannot be corrected in one go, because although people may not be particularly poor when they retire, given the income that they receive, as they get older life becomes more difficult. Things that they bought new when they were 65 are not new when they reach 80. Problems may come about simply because they have got older. Although the problem may be solved for someone of 65, it could recur when they get older.
What the Government are doing is not necessarily helping. Given the spirit of the debate and the fact that Christmas is approaching, I shall not be too critical or unfair, but it is a little easy for the Government to say that they are providing the minimum income guarantee so that no one should be on less money than that minimum. The Government know that many people do not take up the MIG—we have heard eloquent speeches explaining why that is so. The fact that people do not take it up must be taken into account, regardless of the reasons.
At a Select Committee meeting, the Secretary of State said that we should judge a system by how effective it is, and I entirely agree with him. He hung himself with his own words. The system is not effective because people are not taking up the minimum income guarantee. Why are they not doing so? I take the point that the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) made. As well as the practical difficulties, there are philosophical arguments. I accept that those people claim housing benefit and council tax benefit, but there is a crucial difference. They get bills for rent and for council tax, and that provokes some action, whereas they have to be proactive to claim the minimum income guarantee. Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's view, I think that there is a difference. If the MIG were part of the basic state pension, they would automatically claim it, because there is a philosophical expectation of that pension. They understand correctly that they have paid into the system all their lives and are entitled to claim a pension. If they see the minimum income guarantee as welfare, they do not believe that they have paid in all their lives for that, even though they have. There is a very big difference.
It is fair to say that the feeling on the Select Committee is that the MIG is unlikely to be taken up universally unless it is part of the basic state pension. I shall quote one of the witnesses to the Select Committee. He may seem to be making a point that is opposite to the one that I am making, but I shall explain what I mean.
Mr. Andrew Dilnot, a director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said:
If our only concern is targeting the standard of those living on the lowest incomes, then we will always be driven towards relying more on means-testing and less on universalism. If our key concern is upholding the dignity of the elderly, then we are driven towards universalism.
He is saying that, in theory, the means-tested benefit is precisely what is needed for the poorer pensioners, but in effect that is not happening. The second part of that quote explains why that is not happening: it is because it challenges the dignity of people who have to claim the benefit.
There are also the practical problems of claiming the MIG. Are elderly people, whom we accept are probably the poorest in society—whether they are men or women does not matter for the purpose of this point—the most likely or the least likely to claim the minimum income guarantee? I suggest that such people, by virtue of their age, are probably the least likely to claim the MIG, yet they are the very people who need it. It is almost certain that it will fail.
If the problems are philosophical or about practicalities and not about information, is the take-up campaign likely to succeed? As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said, the system is not working. Regardless of the philosophical arguments that we have all made, the fact that the system is not working should be taken into account.
When preparing its report on pensioner poverty, our Select Committee stopped short of recommending a restoration of the earnings link, although many members favoured that. One factor was our wish to see how the pension credit system would work before returning to the issue, but I warn the Government—I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, the Chairman of the Select Committee, will agree if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—that we may return to the subject if it is felt that pensioner credits are not doing enough. I suspect that the evidence received so far suggests that they will not do enough.
Our report called for an increase in the state non-means-tested pension sooner rather than later. It also called for an increase in the basic state paid pension for those aged over 80 to minimum income guarantee level, so that the income of the poorest members of society could be guaranteed.
When we—Members on both sides of the House—are trying to make political points, we tend to stress that the United Kingdom is the fourth largest economy in the world. I am proud that it is, but when that fourth largest economy apparently cannot afford to do what it should be doing, we should question the motivation that may be involved. It horrifies me to think that members of my family might have to claim under the minimum income guarantee, and I suspect that other hon. Members may also not be too happy about the idea.
Pensioners are clearly not happy about proposals for the future. Labour Members must receive the same letters that we receive; pensioners must visit their surgeries, as they visit ours. They must have heard pensioners complaining about the level of the basic state pension only a few weeks ago, in Westminster Hall.
Although I have suggested that the basic pension should be increased, I recognise the problems posed to continual uprating by demographic changes. I speak from


memory, but I believe that 50 years ago there were about five and a half contributors to every pensioner. I think that the figure is now 1.8; the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. Those figures suggest that there is a problem—and the figure of 1.8 is due to fall over the next few years, and as we enter the next century. I do not accept that we have entered the next century yet: I am one of those who think that will start at the end of the current year. Anyway, the figure will fall as we reach 2030, 2040 and 2050.
I accept that, in the long term, we shall find it difficult to provide a basic state pension that will retain the degree of comfort and dignity that the recipients deserve. That is why the Conservative party wants a pensions system that is funded. Why have a number of pensioners—not all, of course—become better off recently? Because they have taken up occupational or private schemes. Although I have made criticisms of the Government's approach, I accept—as I have said—that it is difficult to provide a basic state pension that enables pensioners to live as they would want to live, and as we will want to live when we reach their age.
It is rather disingenuous of any Labour Member to suggest that we would scrap the basic state pension. That is certainly not our policy. I am sure that, if it were proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), it would not be accepted by the Conservative party, and I do not think such allegations serve politicians—or, indeed, the House—very well.
Many general elections ago, we were accused of planning to abolish the national health service. We won many general elections, and did not do that. We have no intention of scrapping the basic state pension now, and I would not support it if it were a proposal; but saying that is very different from making plans to help and guide people to provide for a better future. We betray those people if we do not stress the importance of their making their own pension provisions. Whatever our argument, and on whichever side of the House we sit, the fact remains that that is the only way in which those people will enjoy any prosperity in their old age.
It will come as no surprise to Conservative Members that our proposal to allow people to opt out of the state pension and, perhaps, to receive a rebate that can be invested in a private scheme is not unique. Other countries are well ahead of us. As I have told Front Benchers, two years ago I went to Mexico and studied its pensions system. Mexico is already up and running in this regard: the proposal is not exactly revolutionary.
When I was in Mexico, I asked Ministers whether there might not be a bit of a black hole in resources, given that those in retirement would continue to need funding. They said. "We feel we can manage that", adding, "We would rather face the problem now than pass huge burdens to our children and grandchildren". That, I think, is a very responsible attitude for a so-called developing country to take, but it is too revolutionary for the fourth largest economy in the world.

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is an expert, and has contributed useful information about the reforms in Mexico. He is quite right.
Attending a conference on this subject, I was struck by the radicalism of the Chinese Government's proposals. A former general in the Red Army, who is now roughly the equivalent of the Minister of State—[Laughter.] He

spoke of the desirability of encouraging more funded pension saving in China, so that people would be less dependent on pay-as-you-go systems. My hon. Friend is right: this is an international trend.

Mr. Robertson: China, of course, boasts two systems. There is a political system, in which people say what they really think should happen, and an economic system, in which people have come to realise what must happen. Anyway, I am delighted to learn that the Chinese are also showing us the way forward.
We have developing countries and Communist countries, and here we are lagging behind, in the hope that if we are elected on 3 May—or, hopefully, earlier—we are given a chance to offer people the prospect of a more prosperous retirement.
I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I want to mention one or two other issues that concern me. The first is that of disability living allowance claims. I am sure that all hon. Members can cite cases of constituents' being done down, but I believe that in many cases people are making justifiable claims. Not only are those claims being turned down; when they go to appeal, the process is stretched out. In the case of my constituent Mr. Orrey, papers were lost and the case goes on and on. My constituent has not been given the correct treatment, or the money that is due to him. I urge the Government to look closely at what is happening, especially at the appeal stage.
We heard a little about how certain benefits would be paid to people of the same age, whether they were male or female. Will the Minister tell us his intentions in regard to widows' benefit?
As I said, I have spoken for rather longer than I intended. Let me echo what others have said, and also wish Members on both sides of the House a happy festive season.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate. I start by immediately acknowledging the important and valuable role played by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on the Select Committee on Social Security. He works assiduously in Committee and his experience is highly valuable to us. We look forward to his contribution continuing for a long time to come.
I should like to make just a couple of comments which are additional to those that have already been made. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and other hon. Members that this debate—academic seminar or not—has been very good. I concur with much of what has been said and do not have to repeat points that have already been made.
The tone of the debate, however, has not fully reflected a fact pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—that, for a variety of reasons, many families and domestic households in the United Kingdom are forced to live below income support levels. However good today's uprating statement may be—I have seen many such statements, and this one is better by a margin than most—we must not forget that some households struggle, sometimes for a long time, on incomes that are below the income support levels set by the Government.
The House will have to return to that issue. The Social Security Committee is examining the social fund partly to begin to address precisely that issue, and I hope that we will be able to make some constructive suggestions.
I am concerned also about the debt levels that I hear about in my constituency casework. None of the official statistics—as good as they may be; although, historically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said, they have been out of date—record debt levels. I am increasingly concerned about the role of loan sharks and the extent to which they are able to charge ludicrously high, usurious rates of interest to provide cash to enable some households below income support level to get by from week to week. We should bear that issue in mind.
We should remember the context in which the uprating statement—which, as I said, is generous—is being made. I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon that the increases—particularly the 5 per cent. increase in the retirement pension and widows' bereavement benefit—are extremely welcome. However, table 4 of the Government Actuary's report on the uprating orders—Command Paper 4933, at page 8—which deals with the balance in the national insurance fund at the end of successive financial years, shows that, at 31 March 2000, the percentage of benefit payments in the previous financial year was 31.1 per cent. It predicts that, for 2001, the percentage balance in the national insurance fund would be 39.1 per cent; and that, for 2002, it would be 41.1 per cent.
As we all know, the Government Actuary's recommended fallback, minimum residual working balance is 16 per cent. Therefore, the national insurance fund has working balances that considerably exceed the Government Actuary's recommendation. He forecasts considerable surpluses in those years. He predicts that, for 2000–01. it will be £3,981 million. Therefore, although the Government's November announcement on disability benefits—which the Secretary of State mentioned at the beginning of the debate, and increased expenditure by £200 million—was generous and is very welcome, it should be put in the context of the available sums.
The academics, by whom I am surrounded, will no doubt say, "The Government have already announced plans to spend some of that surplus." I agree that we have to have stability in the national insurance fund, and I am not saying that we should be profligate. Indeed, in our report on the contributory principle, the Social Security Committee made some suggestions about how we could constructively spend some of that money and stay within the general stability targets. Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that the position of the national insurance fund is currently quite healthy. We should bear that fact very much in mind.
I should like to underscore the importance of dealing with a situation that is emerging as a result of the Government's attempts, quite rightly, to increase take-up of the minimum income guarantee. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon was absolutely right that we cannot allow the matter to rest if the number of those who refuse to respond to the Government's blandishments to get in touch remains so high. However, I do not think that the Minister was saying that we should let the matter rest, and I agree that there is disagreement on how the figures should be interpreted.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon also that we should be considering ways of discovering and testing—even if, initially, it is only through a pilot project, and working locally with citizens advice bureaux, local authorities and others—why there is such a poor take-up rate for the minimum income guarantee. The Government's policy is focusing very much on developing means-tested benefits. If they are serious about using such benefits, they should realise that, as useful as it has been, simply mounting a one-off take-up campaign is not enough. It would be complacent of Ministers to think that everything is all right and that they need to do nothing else. I hope that Ministers can be persuaded to re-examine the issue and introduce further measures. I would be happy to try to encourage local activity, and I am sure that all hon. Members would like to increase uptake of the minimum income guarantee.
I confirm the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that the Social Security Committee will be watching very carefully how uptake and the matter of the pension credit unfold. If we do not get better uptake levels, and if the pension credit does not deliver as Ministers and the rest of us hope that it will, I for one would be very willing to return to the idea of relating the uprating to earnings. It is a live issue to which we propose to return.
If we have means testing, there should be an attempt to adopt a light touch—which is a phrase that appealed to me and was used by Professor Jane Millar when she gave evidence to the social Security Committee on the integrated child credit inquiry. The Government should attempt to develop the concept of means testing with a light touch. Some of the changes in capital limits are a move in the right direction but need to go further.
I am grateful that the non-dependent deductions for housing benefit have not been uprated from April 2001. However, although that is very welcome, the Government could have been expected to go further. Indeed, some of us anticipated that they would go further. The Committee recommended that the higher deduction rates should be abolished completely and that the number of rates should be reduced, as that would not only create simplification but increase the available sums. The Government must consider that to be unfinished business. If they do not, people will be rightly disappointed. Additionally, housing benefit is now the biggest block to work incentives embedded in the social security system. The Government's document was a bit disappointing by not pursuing further reform of housing benefit tapers and disregards. I hope that Ministers will return to the issue.
I have a technical question to which the Minister could reply in writing. I am puzzled about the future of contributory additions for children. As hon. Members know, the additions are paid to children of widows, retirement pensioners and those who are on the long-term rate and the higher short-term rate of incapacity benefit, and recipients of invalid care allowance. The additions have not been uprated for years.
There seems to be no justification for reducing the real value of those children's allowances, which are part of the contributory benefits system. They have not been mentioned in any of the Government's plans to integrate the "streams of income" for children that the tax and benefit systems provide. I should like to know the future of the additions. If I cannot have an answer today, a letter would be very welcome.
There is still a question about the future of child benefit, and some assurances from Ministers that child benefit will continue to be fully uprated in future would not go amiss. There are some misgivings among pressure groups and the academic community about that matter.
My penultimate point—bringing me back to where I started—is that it would be very valuable and useful if Ministers could aspire to provide modest, but adequate minimum income levels. Other European countries have developed systems that help people to measure the progress of Governments in a way that some other performance indicators do not. I hope that that concept will be studied by Ministers.
Finally, the one element missing from the debate so far has been the vexed question of frozen pensions for overseas pensioners. I know that the matter has been raised before, but this is the appropriate debate in which to raise it again. I still receive regular and heart-rending letters about the unfairness of the system.
I admit that it is not so much a poverty issue. The people who write to me and bombard me with terabytes of e-mail information are not necessarily poor. What irks them, especially given the positive balances in the national insurance fund, is that nothing is being done.
The Minister may say that rectifying the problem all at once would cost a lot of money, and that would be especially true if payment were to be backdated. I am not calling for that, but something has to be said on behalf of that dwindling group of pensioners. There is a comfortable surplus in the national insurance fund, and some gesture to them is needed.
The Social Security Committee has recently undertaken study visits to Canada and to Australia, and both have been very instructive. We were given a very clear idea of the damage done to the relationship between Britain and those very valuable members of the Commonwealth. That damage should not be overstated, but it should not be underestimated either. It stems from the fact that Britain is walking away from the problem and refusing to pay any attention to the legitimate claims of people who have some entitlement to consideration in this uprating statement, especially given the positive balance in the national insurance fund.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I was somewhat puzzled that the House should debate this important matter on the day that we rise for the Christmas recess. It was almost inevitable that the debate would not attract large participation by hon. Members, although it is interesting that it has benefited from the sheer quality of contributions. I want to thank all who have taken part in a debate that has ranged very widely over social security policy. The quality of all contributions has been exceedingly high. I suspect that I am about to reduce the debate to the mundane, but I shall try very hard not to.
The debate began with the Secretary of State making essentially the same speech that he made when he announced the uprating. It really took off and caught fire when my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) challenged the Secretary of State's strategy on social security policy. We could see the interest in the Chamber in what he was saying. I thought that the members of the Government Front Bench also enjoyed it, and I noted that they participated regularly in the discussion.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is still with us, and I hope that he manages to stay to the end of the debate. He also contributed in a very thoughtful manner, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). Many people have analysed the minimum income guarantee and the problems with take-up. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that there needs to be more research into how we can ensure that people entitled to benefits get them. I have not been in the House as long as the Secretary of State, but my memory is long enough that I recall the previous Conservative Government trying very hard to encourage people to take up the benefits to which they were entitled.
Although I do not want to reduce the debate to the mundane, one question is hard to avoid. The Government claim to be radical and reforming, so why do the texts of the statutory instruments containing the regulations have to be presented in a way that is completely incomprehensible to outsiders? I hope the measure contained in the Queen's Speech to simplify tax legislation successfully completes its progress through the House, but I hope that similar legislation can be introduced with regard to benefits—at least in respect of simplifying the uprating statement. I shall not read out any examples, as I am sure that all hon. Members know what I mean.
I was glad that the statement contained the Conservative policy that invalid care allowance should be paid to carers over retirement age, and that the Secretary of State should have seen the need for that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, we agree with a number of elements of the statement and do not plan to vote against it. However, questions remain to be asked, one of which was raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). That is the problem involving frozen pensions for pensioners living abroad.
In fact, I noticed that one of the questions in today's Order Paper dealt with what will happen to the pensions of people who have lived in Australia. I understand that the Minister of State has answered that question and indicated that the benefit entitlement of people who have worked in Australia will be recognised, provided that their work began before April 2001.
However, it would be helpful to know what will happen with regard to people who want to work in Australia after that date. Given the other problems involved with communicating with people and informing them of their entitlements, what plans are there to ensure that people working in Australia after April 2001 will know about their entitlements? In addition, any clue as to what will happen with regard to people in Australia who receive British pensions is conspicuously absent.
The Under-Secretary of State is to reply to the debate, and he and I have crossed swords about capital limits for disabled people. However, I hope that he will comment further on the matter. I understand the situation with regard to capital limits for pensioners, but we still have had no answer about capital limits for disabled people. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that matter, which has been raised a number of times. I warned that I might reduce the debate to the mundane, but some questions have to be asked, and answered.
No mention has been made of the second order, which deals with the guaranteed minimum pensions increase. It is therefore incumbent on me to raise the matter. The order is fairly standard, and raises by 3 per cent. the guaranteed minimum pension to be paid by occupational pension funds.
The problem this year is that inflation is above 3 per cent—the order quotes a rate of 3.3 per cent. That means that the state will have to pick up the bill for the difference, as required by the legislation governing contracting out. That emphasises that the Government face a problem with their economic policy, as inflation is higher than 3 per cent.
The previous Government introduced the 3 per cent. rule as part of our campaign against inflation. However, the Government's general policy on social security and spending, which means that growth will be higher than the rate of expected economic growth, will add fuel to the inflation flames. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some idea of how much he expects the social security budget to be affected by the change in the inflation rate.
The issue of increases in the payments to rest homes, known as preserved rights, has not yet been mentioned. This year the rest home payments will be increased to £225 a week and the figure for nursing homes will be £337 a week. It is generally reckoned that the genuine cost is about £250 and £400 a week respectively, so care home owners are losing out dramatically in the amount of money that they can spend on their residents.
The Government's NHS winter strategy depends on ensuring that people are taken out of hospitals and put into care homes to stop the trolley waits. However, rest homes and nursing homes are closing at an increasing rate—15,000 beds have gone this year—and because property prices are going up, more and more people are able to sell their homes and get out of the market, thereby reducing the number of beds available. This uprating does not, in any way, shape or form address the Government's political problem; indeed, it will exacerbate the crisis that will almost inevitably hit the NHS, come the new year.
Finally, I turn to the unwarranted increase in the national insurance upper earnings limit of £2,080 a year. This is yet another of the Government's stealth taxes. It has hardly ever been mentioned; it has been slid out quietly so that no one knows that they will be hit by an increased tax. Like the withdrawal from the pension funds and like the fuel duty taxes, it adds up to a huge impost on the basic pay of every individual. The way in which the Government have slid out this increase is reprehensible.
We have spoken at great length about the pension credit and we will be examining its effect very carefully. However, when people have forgotten that the benefits and the pensions interacted at 100 per cent. level, they will in due course see this as a tax rate of 40 per cent.
As we have said, we will not be voting against the order. It is a Christmas present for the Government, and I wish everyone a happy festive season.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I, too, would like to enter the spirit of things. I wish you and your family a

happy Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also wish all Members in the Chamber and their families a happy Christmas, and relatively good fortune to some in the new year.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have entered the Christmas spirit by coming up with extremely generous spending proposals. It is important to reconcile spending proposals with the overall budgetary policies that the parties follow. The proposals from the official Opposition for increased expenditure do not square with their policy to reduce public expenditure by £16 billion. That would make Christmas a rather mean and threadbare affair, especially when we consider the social policies introduced by the Government.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was the first to create the atmosphere of a seminar which I think made for a good debate. Some real issues of social policy were discussed. He made the criticism that the Government do not have a coherent, overarching social policy. I believe that we do. Our policy focuses clearly on poverty reduction. We have stressed the importance of work. We have modernised and changed fiscal and social security policy to pursue those aims, with remarkably good results. This year we will be spending £4 billion less on unemployment benefits, which creates the space and opportunity to improve benefits for others whose age or circumstances mean that they cannot work.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on what it was like when his party was in government. During those 18 years, the number of workless households—families with people of working age who did not work—doubled, as did the number of children growing up in poverty. Was that as a result of the Conservative Government's clear and overarching social policy or was it a failure of their social policy?
Let me say to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that the regulations debated in Committee a few weeks ago which increased the capital limits in relation to a minimum income guarantee for pensioners from £3,000 and £8,000 to £6,000 and £12,000 have been widely welcomed by pensioners. The regulations were also welcomed by Liberal Democrat Members on the Committee and, indeed, by the hon. Lady herself. We are introducing these improvements to the capital limits—which were frozen for a decade under the Conservatives—as a staging post towards the introduction of a pension credit which will provide a real incentive to people to work hard and save hard during their working life.
We are not applying those changes in relation to people on working-age benefits because the considerations are different. If the hon. Lady had listened to the debate in Committee, she would know that; as it is, she can read the record. We have been successful in pursuing policies to ensure that work pays—to create incentives so that people of working age who can work do work. That is why there is a difference between the two age groups.
The hon. Lady spoke about the invalid care allowance. She flatters herself if she believes that the Conservative party's representations on the invalid care allowance led the Government to increase the age at which people can apply for the benefits. She flatters herself if she thinks that carers believe that the Conservative party is genuinely interested in providing more support for older carers. Let me remind her that the invalid care allowance was


introduced by the previous Labour Government in 1976. The Conservative party was in power between 1979 and 1997. If they had wanted to extend the allowance to people applying over the age of 65, they had 18 years in which to do so, and they did not. Within three years of our coming into power, we did it. We did it because we thought that it was right, and I presume that the Conservatives did not do it because they thought that it was wrong.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke about the winter fuel payment. It has been increased to £200 for this year because the Government wish, in the period leading up to the introduction of a pension credit to do more for pensioners on modest incomes. We are this year doubling the value of the winter fuel allowance to £200. Next year we are increasing the basic state pension by considerably more than inflation—by £5 and £8—to provide more for people who are just above the minimum income guarantee level.

Mr. Webb: I am aware that everyone wants to go home, so I promise not to intervene again, but for the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Gentleman give a simple yes or no answer to this question—next year, will the winter fuel payment be £150 or £200?

Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see; he was not told last year what this year's winter fuel payment would be—the amount was not included in last year's regulations. He will have to wait and see what it is for next year.
The orders confirm our determination to provide more support for those people who need in most—those with severe disabilities, carers and the elderly. Our pilots for the new deal for disabled people have shown that it is possible to create opportunities even for those who have been on incapacity benefit for many years—perhaps for 10 years—to get back into the labour market, provided they receive adequate help and support.
Through the new deal we have shown that it is possible to provide support for those who are able to work. The orders make it clear that we are also providing security for those who cannot work. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) asked whether the Government would do more to allow the use of information collected for council tax benefit and housing benefit purposes in calculating entitlement to the minimum income guarantee and to income support. The one service initiative is piloting joined-up working to achieve the outcome that he seeks. The consultation document on the pension credit includes proposals to develop a single application process for those means-tested benefits.
My hon. Friend also referred to the overall rate of benefits and drew attention to disability living allowance and attendance allowance. As he mentioned, from next April we shall improve DLA by extending the higher rate mobility component to three and four-year-old children. We shall also do more for people with the most severe disabilities, who are on the lowest incomes and receive the higher rate care component of DLA. Under the new disability income guarantee, which comes into operation next April, they will receive a further enhancement of their benefit. That enhancement would have provided a minimum income of £128 a week, but as a result of these measures, it will be £142—£14 more. A single, severely disabled person on income support will receive £142; a couple will receive £186.80.
We have made further changes to improve the benefits of disabled people and their carers. We realise that it is hard for people with disabled children to support their families, so we are increasing the disabled child premium in income support by £7.40 a week—raising the amount to £30 a week.
In response to a point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham, we recognise the pressures on carers. I have mentioned our intention—when legislative time permits—to extend new claims to ICA to people aged over 65. These regulations introduce improvements for carers from next April. The carers premium rises by £10 above the normal inflation uprating to £24.40 a week.
The measures for disabled children and for carers and the introduction of disability income guarantee will help about 350,000 of the poorest and most vulnerable families.
The decision to equate the MIG to the highest rate for all pensioners who receive it is another radical step in our battle to end pensioner poverty. Many pensioners will receive a real-terms increase of £12.45 a week as a result of that measure alone. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) drew attention to the surplus of about £3 billion in the national insurance fund. However, the disability measures in the uprating are alone worth more than £200 million a year—this year, next year and in future—than a simple inflation uprating.
As for the pensions uprating, the value of the pensions increase is about £4.5 billion a year more in real terms than the regime that we inherited from the Conservatives in 1997. By 2002–03, there will be about £5 billion a year more for pensioners. That puts into perspective the £3 billion national insurance fund surplus. One could blow the money all at once, but then it would not be there for the future, so the Government are following prudent policies; we are building an economy that generates resources and allows real-terms increases in benefits for disabled people and for pensioners. However, that must have a sustainable basis.

Mr. Kirkwood: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point; the figures have been published and they are clear. I repeat the practical question that I put during my speech. Is it possible for Ministers to ask the Benefits Agency to assist positively all of us who have the opportunity to promote local take-up campaigns in our constituencies? Obviously, we must be careful, because without proper support such campaigns may generate a volume of applications that the benefits agencies cannot cope with. Will the hon. Gentleman commit himself to helping Members who are working locally—with citizens advice bureaux and so on—on such campaigns?

Mr. Bayley: I welcome the spread of take-up campaigns to reinforce the Government's work on the biggest and most successful such campaign—on MIG. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we do not have the power to make discretionary grants to CABs or other groups who undertake similar work. However, we should be happy to see and support such work.
The fact that we have got so far with the MIG take-up campaign—about 60,000 additional cases, and it is not over yet—is something that we should celebrate. Indeed, the hon. Member for Northavon was celebrating that.
The orders give additional help where it is most needed: more help for severely disabled adults and children and for those who care for disabled people. They provide a


guarantee that, from April, no pensioner need live on an income of less than £92.15 a week. We have listened to pensioners and introduced reforms through the pension credit proposals to ensure that saving is rewarded instead of being penalised as it was in the past. We have acted to ensure that all pensioners benefit from the country's rising prosperity, by proposing—from next year—an increase in the basic state pension of £5 a week for a single person and £8 a week for a couple.
I commend the orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 13th December, be approved.

Pensions

Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 30th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Bayley.]

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Tom Cox: I want to talk about two local issues in my Tooting constituency, both of which involve the prison department of the Home Office. Local residents deeply oppose both projects, as I do myself.
The first issue is the opening, in Bedford hill in the Bedford ward of my constituency, of a hostel to house former high-risk ex-prison inmates. The second is the possible housing development on land in Heathfield square in the Springfield ward, which is at the rear of Wandsworth prison. I have written to the Minister of State at the Home Office who is responsible for prisons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on both issues.
There is enormous local opposition to the proposed opening of the hostel in January next year. There has also been an appalling lack of discussion with local people. The first real information about the project and its purpose came from the local press. We are given to understand that the hostel will house men who have been convicted of rape and offences against children. Is it any wonder that there is local opposition to the project?
I am appalled by the lack of any meaningful consultation. I, the local Member of Parliament, have not been informed about this project by anyone. I deplore the way in which an issue that we all know is sensitive in all constituencies has been dealt with. I shall comment in greater detail about that in a moment.
The area in which it is proposed to open the hostel contains a number of schools and nurseries. One has to ask whether the people who run those establishments were informed about the proposals for the hostel. When one starts to make inquiries, one finds that little information is available about the day-to-day running of the hostel. We do not know who will decide who will be allowed to reside in it, how it will be supervised or how risk assessments will be made of people who have been in prison, served their sentence, and are to go to the hostel.
I accept that there comes a time for prisoners to be released, but these people have committed very serious offences against society. We do not even know the long-term aims of the project because, sadly, we simply have not been informed by anyone. Against that background, the clear opposition and concern arose.
Local people in that area of my constituency take a clear view that the authorities have deliberately sought to keep quiet the purpose to which the hostel will be put. The local residents whom I represent are reasonable and tolerant people, but many of them have young children, and they know what can and does happen. In my view, they have already suffered enormously from the lack of information that I have described.
I realise that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who will reply to the debate, is not responsible for home affairs. Having heard him speak in similar Adjournment debates, I can say that, to his great credit, he always responds to the points that I, and all other hon. Members, raise. I am sure that he will respond to my comments about who has been consulted.
It would be nice to know whether there has been any real consultation with. Wandsworth council. I do not know about that, but I do know, as the whole House knows,


that if a local authority is not kept fully informed about this sort of project in its area, it could lead to the sort of protests that took place in Portsmouth a few months ago when it became known that paedophiles were living in a certain area. My constituents have made it clear to me that they certainly do not want that sort of action taking place in Balham; neither do I.
I have some advice for the Home Office, and for the Inner London probation service, which I believe is the real culprit behind the lack of available information. Apparently it held a meeting, but there is a great deal of confusion about exactly who attended. Certainly, no local residents were invited to attend. I, as the local Member of Parliament, was certainly not invited or even told about the meeting. Apparently, in the course of that meeting, it emerged that potential hostel residents might have committed serious offences. They might have carried out robberies with extreme violence, or been convicted of sexual abuse of children. As I said, the concern in my constituency should not surprise anyone.
I have tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the need for hon. Members—any hon. Member, not just myself—to be fully informed when such hostels are to be opened in their constituencies. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South replied:
As part of this process, it is recognised as good practice that the hon. Member for the constituency where the accommodation is located will be informed of the development, and that the hon. Member's views on the development will be taken into consideration.—[Official Report, 20 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 217W.]
Neither of those two requirements suggested by my right hon. Friend have applied to me. No one has consulted me or asked me my views about the proposal.
We should now consider the matter most seriously. Until there has been proper discussion with the local community, the local council, schools, churches and other local organisations, the proposed hostel should not open. It is as clear as that. It should not open because we do not know about so many aspects of the hostel—what sort of supervision will be in place, for example. We have been given a clear indication of the type of person who will reside in it, but we do not know whether there will be 24-hour or seven-day supervision. I have the duty to voice in this House the real concerns expressed to me both by phone and in the large number of letters that I have received from my constituents, who are deeply troubled.
I hope that the Minister will convey to the Home Secretary the fact that the hostel must not be opened until local people have been given the right to full consultation, which has so far been denied them. They must be allowed to voice their views about the proposals for the hostel, but I say that it should not be opened at all. The hostel was formerly used for ex-offenders, and my constituents accepted that, because there are people who have been in prison and served their sentence, and are not a threat to society. However, I am not talking about that; the problem is that, because it was already a hostel, no planning application was needed for a change of use. That is what concerns us so deeply. I ask my hon. Friend to convey those feelings to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The other issue that I wish to talk about also involves the prison department. According to the Home Office, land at the rear of Wandsworth prison is now surplus to

its needs, and there is a proposal that that land should be used for housing development. As with the previous issue, there is great opposition to that development taking place. If it were allowed, it would spoil the whole local environment, because it is a large open space used by local people of all ages, especially young children.
In fairness to the Home Office, I should say that, unlike the other issue, there has been consultation on that issue. Wandsworth council has presented a public consultation document, a public meeting has taken place, and the issue will go before the council's planning committee. I accept those procedures, as we all do. Although those procedures are necessary, it is also crucial to listen principally to the views of the people who live in the area. It is no good the authorities—whether the Government or local authorities—telling the community, "This land belongs to us, and we will do whatever we think appropriate with it." They should listen to the people who live in that environment to discover to what use they want the land to be put.
I have received an enormous number of letters from local people, and many of them have come to see me at my advice service, but to date, only one person has written to me in support of the Home Office proposals for housing development on that site. Those who live in the area are truly a local community. Their youngsters play in the area with their friends. The area is used for a great many activities during the year. Parents feel very happy for their children to be in that environment, away from the mass of traffic that circulates in the area. They can easily see their children, and can be with them in few seconds if necessary. If the housing development is allowed to take place, that environment would be lost to local people.
When people write to me and when they see me, they tell me that children love the area; it is peaceful, quiet and away from traffic, and a wide range of sport—football, cricket and badminton, for example—is played there. We are repeatedly told in the House that those are the very things that that young people and adults should be involved in, which is why that open space is so important. A great deal of wildlife can been seen there. People see foxes, birds and hedgehogs. It is all part of a community that is growing up in an environment in which people are happy to live, and they want to continue to live there; they enjoy it.
The green, as it is known locally, has existed for more than 100 years. The prison governor of the time dedicated it for use as a recreation and leisure facility for prison staff and their families. That is still one of its uses, because it is adjacent to Wandsworth prison, and many of those who are most vehement in their criticism of the loss of that open space to housing development are prison officers. We all know that their job is very difficult and stressful. The working environment can be pretty grim at times, but immediately in the area where they live, they have an environment—an open space—where they can relax, and where they and their friends, families and neighbours can enjoy themselves. We are totally opposed to that delightful open space being turned into a housing development and lost to the local community.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. I have raised two local issues of great importance to my constituents. I beg the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who has responsibility for prisons, to listen carefully to my comments. The issues are totally different, but they


are very important to the people whom I represent. Like all hon. Members, I have a duty to raise such concerns when given the opportunity, and I have certainly done so today.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I shall speak about an issue that, I hope, is of concern to colleagues and hon. Members—the House itself. The issue is typified, in a sense, by the fact that the shadow Leader of the House is on the Opposition Front Bench, but the Leader of the House is not on the Treasury Bench. For three years, I was parliamentary private secretary to Lord Wakeham when he was Leader of the House. It was inconceivable that the then Leader of the House would not be present to respond to such a debate. It is a great pity that this debate has been downgraded. Although I obviously respect the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), it is also a great pity that the Leader of the House will not respond to the debate.
I want to speak briefly about an important issue, but I do not expect that it will receive any coverage in my local newspapers or in tomorrow's national newspapers, because it is not worthy of a soundbite. My concern is the way in which the House is being dumbed down by the Government and the fact that Parliament, as an institution, seems to matter less and less. We see that not just in the way in which the other place has been stripped of its independent powers, but in the way in which the House is treated. We also see it in the way in which Government Back Benchers seem not to appreciate that calling the Government to account is part of their role.
When I was a Minister, I found a number of my Back Benchers a complete pain in the neck, but I loved them dearly. They served an important constitutional role, and one Nick Budgen was, on occasion, worth 10 placemen. If the House is simply full of placemen and placewomen, it ceases to have any effect; we need grit in the wheels for it to work. We have an unwritten constitution, which has developed and evolved over the years. It is like an English wood; it did not appear suddenly in the aftermath of war or revolution—like the American or French constitutions—but it works.
My concern is that the Prime Minister seems increasingly to want to enhance his powers so that they become almost presidential. He seems to have forgotten that this is a parliamentary democracy. I would be very disappointed if I were a new Labour Back Bencher. Judging by the Prime Minister's voting record, I suspect that the opportunities for Labour Back Benchers to talk to him are pretty limited. When I joined the House, the then Prime Minister was in the Division Lobby every night, but I have to say to my constituents that the present Prime Minister is not in the Division Lobby every night; he votes in only about 10 per cent. of all Divisions.
In the whole of this Parliament, I have never yet seen the Prime Minister in the Tea Room, whereas, when I joined the House, the then Prime Minister was often there, taking an interest in every one of us. When I was a junior Minister, the one thing that I was wary of was seeing the Prime Minister bearing down on me in the Division Lobby, wanting to understand what I had—or, more

important, had not—been doing that day on a particular policy issue. We seem to have moved away from all that, which is desperately sad.
We have witnessed the decimation of the House of Lords. By that, I do not mean the removal of the hereditary peers. Intellectually, one can see why it was difficult to defend hereditary peers, but in a strange and quirky way, the system worked. It was independent. When the Conservatives were in government, our concern at being defeated in the House of Lords frequently made Ministers adjust their policies. We frequently had to compromise with the House of Lords, and the system worked.
The House of Lords was the one institution of Parliament that had an element of independence, and that element has been removed. No one fully understands where the Government are going with their proposed reform of the House of Lords. In fact, one suspects that they have no idea where they wish to go with it. There was much debate about the new people's peers, but the proposal is a great cynical exercise. It is merely a commission to appoint Cross-Bench peers. I suspect that, at the end of that exercise, all that will happen is that 10 Cross-Bench peers—worthy individuals such as vice-chancellors of universities or past presidents of the Royal College of Physicians—will be appointed by that commission.
We have no idea what the Labour party proposes to do with the House of Lords to make it an independent institution again. The Prime Minister has appointed more life peers to the House of Lords in three years than Conservative Prime Ministers did in the previous 18 years. That is the extent of the patronage in the House of Lords. It is no longer an independent body, and no longer a body with any grit in the system.
There seems to be an implied understanding, as far as Labour Members are concerned, that if they have a majority in the House of Commons, they should also have a majority in the other place. If that happens, the system will become an "elective dictatorship"—the concept about which Lord Hailsham expressed concern some years ago. We hope to gain a clear understanding of how the House of Lords can, again, become a body that will ensure that the House of Commons and the Executive are kept in check.
We are also concerned about the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has a strange view of this place. He has attended only about 10 per cent. of Divisions during this Parliament, which is distressing because it seems to indicate a state of mind in which scrutiny is not important. Furthermore, dissent in this place has almost entirely disappeared. I appreciate that eliminating dissent is good news from the point of view of the Government Whips, and from the point of view of business managers such as the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who has a duty to get the Government's business through with the least possible difficulty. However, eliminating dissent is not good news for. Parliament.

Mr. John Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House who introduced the Jopling proposals? Does he think that those proposals enhanced this place or diminished it?

Mr. Baldry: I shall come to that issue in a moment. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point, but I do not wish to detain the House for long, because I appreciate that many other Members wish to speak.
The concept of modernisation has been about altering hours and changing voting arrangements and the times at which voting takes place. Nothing that has happened so far, supposedly in the name of modernisation, has enhanced the ability of elected Members to hold the Executive to account. The opposite is the case: nothing that has happened in the name of modernisation has enhanced by one jot the ability of Back Benchers on either side of the House to call the Government to account. Instead, we have witnessed some elegant moving of the furniture. However, the ability to vote 10 times in one minute on a Wednesday afternoon in the Division Lobby does not enable me to hold the Executive to account any more ably.
This Parliament has seen the fewest rebellions by Back Benchers of any Parliament since the second world war. By this stage in the previous Parliament, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was Prime Minister, there had been almost two thirds more Divisions in which Ministers had been confronted with dissent from their own Back Benchers. Of course, that was an irritant for us—it was often a complete pain in the neck—but it made the system work. One was accountable to one's own Back Benchers and to people at the other end of the Corridor. That made Ministers think. This Government have the most compliant group of Back Benchers since the 1940s. They might think that having everyone on message on their pagers is good news, but it is not good for Parliament as an institution. It is sad news, because such practices tend to be passed down from generation to generation.
Derek Draper, a former lobbyist and adviser to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), observed that only 17 people nowadays count. Practically none of those people is an elected Member of Parliament. I want us to try to work out ways in which elected Members of the House of Commons will have greater opportunities to call the Executive to account.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition set up the Norton report under the chairmanship of Lord Norton of Louth. It made 90 interesting suggestions, including the restoration of Prime Minister's Question Time to twice a week, which would give us a greater opportunity to call the Prime Minister to account. The report also called for more Question Times and shorter debates with more opportunities for Back Benchers to speak. Shoving us all off into Westminster Hall—a sort of empty cavern—does not assist us in calling Ministers to account. We need to strengthen Committees, and to improve the opportunities of Select Committees to make representations to the House.
We should improve the way in which European legislation is monitored in the House. I was the Minister responsible for fisheries in the previous Conservative Government, and I find it extraordinary that we did not have a debate on the Fisheries Council meeting this year. Every year, we used to have a full day's debate on the Council's proposals, which would enable colleagues from fishing constituencies to express their concerns and to vote on them. There has been no such debate this year. Indeed, at best, the relevant documents were referred to a Committee to be scrutinised. That is no way for the House to perform.
Part of our agenda for 2001 must be to strengthen the institutions of Parliament on a cross-party basis. As an increasingly tubby and gnarled Back Bencher, I do not believe that the work of the Modernisation Committee is strengthening accountability and democracy in this place, no matter how much I may or may not support breast-feeding in different parts of the Palace. What has happened in the name of modernisation is nothing other than a matter of convenience for the Leader of the House and business managers. Nothing has enhanced and increased the ability of Back Benchers on both sides of the House to call the Executive to account.
If we allow Parliament to continue in that way, we will become increasingly irrelevant. We are moving towards an elective, almost unaccountable and uncheckable dictatorship, which would be to no one's benefit. As we go further into this century, I hope that Parliament as an institution can start to apply its mind to ensuring that we modernise in a way that restores the checks and balances that have evolved for centuries, but which seem in danger of disappearing.

Ms Jenny Jones: I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the importance of urban forestry in our towns and cities, and the threat that it faces. I originally raised the issue in a similar debate in March 1999. At the time, a national newspaper described Wolverhampton as one of the country's greenest and cleanest cities. It was not quite right, because at that time Wolverhampton was still a town—albeit a town that was enthusiastically bidding for city status. As the House knows, earlier this week we received the good news that it is to become one of the three millennium cities. When I left Wolverhampton on Monday morning to catch the train here, I left some very happy people behind. The celebrations are already under way.
I want to put it on the record that we are delighted that that special distinction has been conferred on the town. We take the matter seriously and it is a boost to the town's confidence. However, a slight shadow has been cast over the celebrations. Although the debates on it are not meant to be partisan, I was a little disappointed to read the front page of The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday morning which reported an Opposition Front Bencher as malting churlish remarks about the award of city status. We must bear it in mind that the Queen ultimately grants the distinction.
On reading other papers, I discovered that some members of the media had decided that the award was another excuse to air unfounded prejudices about Wolverhampton. The Times and The Daily Telegraph contained the most amazing amount of breath-taking drivel about Wolverhampton that I had ever read. It was based on pure ignorance of the town, or city as it now is, and its past achievements. I have one thing to say to those critics: visit Wolverhampton, stay for a while, accept the extremely warm welcome that will be given by Wulfrunians and take the time to find out what it has achieved in its 1,000 year history, because for more than 1,000 years it has contributed significantly to this country's economic, social and cultural life. If any town deserves city status, it is Wolverhampton.
If the critics of the new city take time to discover what Wolverhampton is really like, I guarantee that they will be pleasantly surprised because all strangers invariably leave


saying that it is much better and nicer than they thought it would be. Having got that off my chest, I shall return to the substance of my speech.
When I spoke in March 1999, I highlighted the importance of urban woodland, in particular, mature street trees, to our towns and cities. In addition to making places look more pleasant, trees also benefit areas by improving air quality, reducing the risk of flooding, which is very relevant these days, and increasing biodiversity. I am not the only Member of the House who believes that. In June this year, I tabled an early-day motion that was signed by 173 Back Benchers from all main parties.
The early-day motion called on the Government to ensure the protection and promotion of urban trees and woodlands by developing a national strategy. We expected the Government to set out their polices in the urban White Paper, which was published last month. It refers to the importance of looking after the urban environment, to improving air quality, to coping with climate change and to improving the quality of life in our towns and cities by promoting wildlife and environmental initiatives. To sum up, it promotes environmentally sustainable towns and cities. However, to do that, the relevant Department—the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—will have to produce a coherent and co-ordinated urban forestry strategy, and it does not have one.
The headquarters of the National Urban Forestry Unit is in Wolverhampton. Its staff are experts in developing urban forestry strategy. The unit has been operating for six years and receives considerable funding from the Department to carry out its work. That funding ceases in March next year and negotiations have been under way to secure future funding so that it can continue its good work and, hopefully, help the Department to formulate the strategy that it needs.
The Department has admitted many times that the work of the unit is valuable and it is acknowledged as extremely effective. Despite that, a press release nearly two weeks ago said that the Department would probably not provide the unit with any more funding from the end of March next year. I understand that negotiations might be under way or will resume in the new year, and I hope that the Department can be persuaded to rethink its decision. It will be a pity if it does not.
Several environmental organisations "plant trees", as an official of the Department put it, including Groundwork, the Tree Council and the Forestry Commission, but they are unique and do different jobs. It is a mistake to think that the work of the National Urban Forestry Unit can automatically be taken on by another organisation.
Powerful lobbying has taken place behind the scenes. The unit has conducted schemes in at least 50 other constituencies. I hope that negotiations will continue. If they do not, and the unit's future is threatened, I am not convinced that the Department will be able to produce the coherent strategy that it needs to take urban forestry seriously.
I want to send the message to the Department that it should keep on talking to the National Urban Forestry Unit. An important issue is at stake. The urban White Paper recognises that we need to pay much more attention to urban forestry. Although I will retire from the House at the

general election, I must remind Ministers that I have several months left to table questions and early-day motions, and to keep a close eye on what Ministers are doing.
I think that I have used up my allotted time. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House a merry Christmas and a happy holiday. This year, we in Wolverhampton will enjoy very happy and very special new year celebrations.

Mr. Peter Brooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) referred to our late colleague, predecessor to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones). I admire Wolverhampton and I am glad for its people in their rejoicing at its becoming at city. I had not realised that the hon. Lady was to retire; I shall be doing the same myself and I hope that her retirement is as pleasurable as I hope mine will be. I also hope that, in yet another place from the one down the Corridor, the hon. Lady's predecessor is smiling at the subjects that she feels should delay our rising for Christmas.
It is in the nature of recess Adjournment debates that the subjects most likely to be on our minds are those that might be called real time stuff—current issues that have been running strongly in the weeks before we rise and in relation to which Parliament's temporary pause might work against our scrutiny of the Executive. Examples that I might have cited in arguments to delay our recess are the letting of the new lottery contract and the state of the Metropolitan police.
To his credit, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was present in the Chamber at 1.45 am on Tuesday 19 December, when we debated two national lottery orders. However, he has gone to ground since Lord Burns announced his commission's decision on the letting of the new lottery contract later that day. Even the Delphic oracle, that most ambiguous mistress, would have agreed that there were questions to be put to the Secretary of State about the process and its outcome, including, as I understand it, questions asked by Sir Richard Branson himself. However, at business questions today, in response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) speaking for the Liberal Democrats, the Leader of the House opined implicitly that her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be allowed to hibernate after his labours in the small hours of Tuesday, and that urgency in dealing with the matter would not be appropriate in the aftermath of a process that had already taken 12 months.
The issues relating to the Metropolitan police are more urgent, whatever the Government have chosen to say about the interest shown in them by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. In the recent Commons debate on policing in London, in which I suspect the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) also participated, I alluded to concern about police numbers in London being a constant refrain at every recent meeting I had attended in my constituency, whether of amenities societies, residents' associations, police-community consultative groups or sector working parties. The issue is not one that has suddenly surprised the Government, but, as is so often the case with the current Home Office Ministers, their answer has been simply to blame their predecessors.
The most dramatic consequence of the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was the markedly more conciliatory tone


adopted by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), on the "Today" programme this morning. In addition, the length of the Prime Minister's final answer to my right hon. Friend yesterday clearly indicated that he did not have a killer fact with which to end the exchange—it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman did not know how or where to stop. The issue will not go away during the Christmas recess, but perhaps that which we have so far received is all that the Government can generate at present.
A matter on which I shall dwell briefly is one to which I referred in business questions last week as
the ambiguities in the current European defence imbroglio. [Official Report, 14 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 810.]
I asked why the Secretary of State for Defence, after being absent from the Queen's Speech defence debate, was not to come to the House before it rose to clarify those ambiguities. The Leader of the House explained that confusion existed only in the minds of Conservative Members. Leaving aside the philosophical question of how anyone knows what goes on—or does not go on—in the mind of another, at business questions today I asked the Leader of the House whether her answer last week was a subjective remark of her own, or an objective remark on behalf of the Government. She replied that it was the former. Therefore, the possibility must exist that there are ambiguities in current European defence matters that extend beyond the minds of Conservatives. However, it is clear that the Government perceive no obligation to address those ambiguities. Given what they are committing us to, the matter seems sufficiently important to delay the House rising for Christmas.
I centre my remarks on a remark that the Prime Minister made in his statement after the Nice European Council. In the context of an EU-led operation to which he had just alluded, he said:
Any significant operation will require NATO assets and any such operation will be planned at NATO by the planning staff at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe—SHAPE.—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 349–50.]
Later, in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Prime Minister said:
There is no way in which the force will be a rival to NATO—
adding that—
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether it was better to develop our defence capability inside NATO … That point has been made by our American allies … Bill Cohen did not take the opposite point of view. He said exactly what we have been saying, which is that, provided that the force is not an independent military capability and a rival to NATO, its establishment is in America's interest.…[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 365.]
When, last month, the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement on European defence co-operation, he made no reference to planning, save to say:
It is a planning process to ensure a more effective defence effort by European forces.…[Official Report, 22 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 314.]
In advance of the Nice European Council, President Chirac had said…I quote in English:
European defence must of course be co-ordinated with the alliance, but it must, as regards its preparation and implementation, be independent of SHAPE: co-ordinated, but independent, and that is the best way to reinforce the whole Atlantic alliance.
That message was reiterated in a statement from the Quai d'Orsay of 15 December, reprinted by Associated Press, which stated that leaving all planning to SHAPE would

leave it under US control. After Nice, on 13 December, Agence France Presse reported that EU leaders had called for "guaranteed permanent access" to NATO planning and had maintained that
the Europeans would have their own smaller planning capability, based mainly on British and French expertise.
On the same day, Associated Press reported Mr. Cohen, the United States Defence Secretary, as saying:
The European Union will erode NATO and US security ties if it insists on separate operational planning for its new rapid reaction force.
The Government may take the view that they are not responsible for what President Chirac says, but there is little doubt elsewhere that the French Government have been the main motor in the European defence initiative. The Government cannot dismiss the draft presidency report on the European security and defence policy, especially annexe 7 to the presidency conclusions, which treats on consultation and co-operation between the European force and the NATO alliance. In particular, I cite a quotation from page 9 of the draft presidency report. It reads:
The European Union will call on NATO for operational planning of any operation using NATO assets and capabilities. When the Union examines options with a view to an operation, the establishing of its strategic military options could involve—
I emphasise could—
a contribution by Nato's planning capabilities.
Leaving aside the discretionary nature of the second statement that I have quoted, it has necessarily to carry the implication that the European defence force will have a military planning capacity of its own.
I have gone back to the ipsissima verba that underlie the issue. The various statements that I have quoted cannot be squared as being mutually consistent with one another, except in an ambiguous and confusing manner which is the precise antithesis of successful military operations.
One of my retired constituents appears as an expert witness before Select Committees on transport issues. In retirement, he devotes much of his time to military history, including visits to a series of scenes of military engagements abroad. I asked him once how he chose his campaigns. "Cock-ups", he said. I can hope only that the European rapid reaction force will not elicit his attention in future.
A week ago, the Leader of the House resisted my request that the Secretary of State for Defence should come to the House this week to clarify these issues. The right hon. Lady was confident, as the deputy Leader of the House knows, that no confusion or ambiguity existed in the mind of the Government. I am only sorry that she is not present now to resolve my anxieties. By definition, from her own lips, she believes there to be no confusion.
Of course, her confidence has been such, extending to the entire Government, that I know in advance that the deputy Leader of the House will be able to set my anxieties at rest and enable me to enjoy the Christmas recess without these issues to worry about. However, he will not be able to do that with soft and soothing words, which would sharpen my anxieties. I am looking forward to resolution of the contradictions that the statements that I have quoted engender by a robust and rigorous textual analysis and a detailed explanation of how the European force's military planning will be carried out.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). We all remember that he found the right form of words to start the peace process in Northern Ireland. He chairs the Select Committee on Northern Ireland, of which I am a member, and does that in an excellent way that is a credit to the House and an assistance towards continuing the process. I wish him well when he leaves the House, as I do my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).
I shall raise two constituency items. I had intended to raise only one, which is a matter that I have talked about previously and have raised at every opportunity. That is the closure of the former Biwater (Clay Cross) Ltd. works, with the loss of 700 jobs, and the devastation surrounding that. That is the main item on which I shall concentrate.
I was contacted a couple of hours ago by one of my constituents, Kevin Stevenson, from Wingerworth, whose wife went into the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital, and was sectioned five weeks ago. She got out of the hospital, and is now being looked for through co-ordinated police action with helicopters and divers at Stubbin pond at Wingerworth, her spectacles having been discovered nearby. We are fearing the worst but we are hoping for the best.
I stress that it is the Government's responsibility to examine the means by which Nichola Stevenson was able to leave the ward and the hospital, and put herself in an extremely dangerous position. There are some shortcomings at the hospital. It is being said that she had been released from the ward to go to Menzies, the stationers, in the hospital. If that occurred, that is disgraceful. She was sectioned and needed to be supervised. The matter must not be missed. A formal complaint has been put forward by Mr. Stevenson, and it must be ensured that there is a thorough investigation.
Unfortunately, a previous thorough investigation did not come up with the result that some of us had hoped for. It is the hospital which Anita Froggart attended. She, too, is one of my constituents. She had a breast removed in error, the wrong diagnosis having been made. The hospital has recently had a report produced by the Commission for Health Improvement, which points to shortcomings in that area. The Commission's role was to seek to improve standards. In other areas, the hospital has an excellent record and one to be emulated by others. The excellence of its accident unit is stressed in the report. However, there are shortcomings that need to be addressed.
When the Department of Health studies the clinical governance review, I hope that it will also consider the other serious matter that I have raised. As I speak, divers are searching the pond.
The main item about which I shall speak is the one that I have raised at every opportunity since we came back from the summer recess. Apart from contributions in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and two other questions in the House during that time, I have spoken in the House exclusively about this matter.
I was closely involved in the campaign to save the jobs, because we believed that the decision was wrong. The plant was viable; 80 per cent. of its production was for the export market. Serious job losses have occurred.

The matter should have been referred to the Competition Commission, in an attempt to prevent the closure. It is a matter about which I have been in dispute with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and with the Director General of Fair Trading.
Now that the closure has occurred—there is a further stage tomorrow, after which very little will remain—we must move on and consider how to bring about the regeneration of such a devastated area. The problems are massive.
A valuable survey has been produced by Derbyshire county council, which shows that the figure for male unemployment in the area must take into account not only the redundancies, but the other jobs lost in service trades—many have already been lost in scrap yards, for example—and in the community, in shops and so on.
In Clay Cross, South, the ward in which Biwater is situated, as a result just of redundancies, male unemployment has risen from 8.2 per cent. to 14.5 per cent. In Clay Cross, North there has been a similar increase, from 8.5 per cent. to 14.7 per cent. In the surrounding area—Clay Cross plus Grassmoor, Holmewood and Heath, North Wingfield, Pilsley, Tupton and Wingerworth—the male unemployment figures increased by almost 60 per cent. because 75 per cent. of those who have been made redundant live within a five-mile radius of the plant.
The closure has been devastating. The area has not overcome past economic problems. It supplied many miners to the pits in north Derbyshire, and some former miners later worked at Biwater. An indication that the area was facing economic problems even before the closure is provided by the proportion of vacant shop units. In 1987, the figure was 5 per cent, and this year it is 18 per cent. The figures refer to virtually the same number of units.
Those figures give some indication of the plight that the Clay Cross area faces. Everything must be done to ensure that the area is regenerated. Some three weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I met the Prime Minister to discuss the situation. At that stage we were still hoping to save the plant.
Although the Prime Minister did not accept that our objective could be achieved, he stated:
We have to work up a Task Force approach as the alternative and I will co-operate in any way I can.
The Prime Minister supplied me with access to officials at No. 10 Downing street to try to work up a co-ordinated approach. The problem is that there are little bits and pieces and different types of legislation under which moves can be taken to improve an area. We need a clear overall strategy to be worked out and co-ordination to achieve it. There are Government agencies for doing that, such as the Government office of the east midlands, which I met this week to discuss these matters. However, at this level, the Prime Minister's office is very much at the centre in seeing that action is taken across all the different areas.
I want to mention one or two possibilities that can be acted upon. At the moment, a rapid response fund is operating and there are attempts at tailored training plans for the workers, although there is some dissatisfaction about how they are run and the agencies that are employed to operate them. Indeed, the agencies sometimes seem to benefit from their operations, rather than the workers


themselves. There are also employment services and tax breaks. Coalfields taskforce money is available and bids can be made to the Coalfield Regeneration Trust in an attempt to change things. There is an argument about whether an enterprise zone should be established in that area. However, there have been job losses in surrounding areas in the east midlands, such as those at Coats Viyella, so everyone may be trying to go down that road. However, there is strong case for attracting firms in using tax breaks and other methods.
The district council has set up a Clay Cross regeneration project and is looking at several matters, such as re-opening the station at Clay Cross. What will happen to the former Biwater site, where a peculiar deal was in operation? Biwater kept hold of the land and the buildings, and Saint-Gobain, the international firm that came in to knock out a competitor and take over its order book, had only the plant, those orders and the work force. We do not yet know what Biwater has in mind. We need clarification of its ideas, and action is being taken to achieve that. We do not want a waste disposal operation of an objectionable environmental nature to be established. However, things could be done with the site that could help employment in the area.
Several schemes are already in place, as Clay Cross needed schemes to provide welfare advice services and tackle health issues, security measures, drug control and so on. The council has been involved in a development at Coney Green, and several measures that are being developed in surrounding areas, such as the reclamation of Avenue coke works. However, there is a need to centre on matters such as the single regeneration budget and enterprise and regional selective assistance grants, which will attract firms to make applications for them. There is the question of whether to establish an urban development corporation, which would have Government funding and operations behind it, but which might take over some of the district council's functions. We must also overcome existing problems, including poor funding for North East Derbyshire district council and Derbyshire county council. I have argued about that in the House for more than decade, so I will not go through all those arguments again. Under the Green Paper, it seems that we will now have to wait three years before those matters are put right. However, that indicates that something needs to be done.
The loss of objective 2 funding is another problem involving the Department of Trade and Industry. Objective 2 funding has gone from Clay Cross in those circumstances and the area also receives a lower share of lottery funding. What is required is the drawing down of best practice elsewhere, and the Prime Minister's office and others can help us to achieve that.
The local strategy on which people are working must be picked up and worked on nationally. When the Prime Minister says that he will do whatever he can, we want it to become reality. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he would do whatever he could to save the plant, but that did not work and we must now ensure that we get the proper responses. It is important for that to be put on the record before the recess.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I point out that a number

of hon. Members on both sides of the House want to participate in the debate. It will, therefore, be helpful if hon. Members can keep their remarks as brief as possible.

Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Indeed, it is reassuring for Opposition Members to know that some Labour Members listen with scepticism to the words uttered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his hard work to achieve a positive result for his constituents. When I was a Minister with responsibility for housing, I paid a pleasurable visit to Clay Cross. Indeed, I still have a picture on the wall to remind me of the occasion.
I want to harangue the Government again about the increasing administrative inefficiency that is experienced by the constituents of all hon. Members. Such inefficiency adds to the burden of bureaucracy, as well as to the burden placed on Members of Parliament and their secretaries. It also creates additional cost.
I should like to give five examples from my constituency of the effects of administrative inefficiency. Recently, the pension of an elderly lady was abruptly withdrawn because it was suddenly decided in officialdom that she was no longer alive. It has been a nightmare for her to try to get her pension restored. She now has to walk around with her birth certificate—indeed, she almost needs a doctor's certificate saying that she is alive—to try to obtain the benefits to which she is entitled.
Another example of such problems arose in the past month. A doctor who had paid his national insurance contributions for some 40 years reached his retirement, but did not receive notification of his pension, so he applied for it. About three months after doing so, he received a claim form. He sent back the form straight away, but the Totton benefits office disputes that he ever did so. The system and its bureaucracy, for which the Government are ultimately responsible, are treating the retired doctor and his wife, who posted the letter, as if they are liars. They are also behaving as if every aspect of their organisation is thoroughly efficient. That is intolerable. The doctor has to write to me and I have to write in turn to the Department, the Minister and so on. All that wasteful bureaucracy results from inefficiency.
Another of my constituents is a war pensioner who travelled all the way from Christchurch to Exeter last August for a tribunal hearing. When he arrived in Exeter, he found that the War Pensions Agency had not given the full papers to the tribunal, which ordered that a rehearing should occur straight away. However, he is still waiting to be notified of its date. I telephoned the War Pensions Agency last week and was told that the matter was in the hands of the tribunal. I then spoke to the tribunal, but was told that it might be February before the case was reheard. I remind hon. Members that the previous hearing has already been adjourned.
Another recent case is that of a constituent who was the victim of a car accident. He eventually succeeded in badgering the Crown Prosecution Service into bringing a prosecution. On doing so, however, the CPS failed to warn the witnesses and the case was consequently dismissed by the magistrates. In terms of his insurance, my constituent is left up the creek without a paddle.
Finally, the media studies A-level paper of the best performing pupil at Ferndown upper school was marked with a C, rather than an A, solely because his marks were not added up correctly. The school complained, but, unfortunately, it took until the end of September to add up the marks correctly, by which time the pupil had missed the opportunity of pursuing the university course that he wanted to take. I took up the issue with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and this week received from it a letter that is far too complacent. The letter says that
the number of changes to awarded grades needed in the light of checking remains very small … 0.3 per cent. for A level and about 0.1 per cent. for GCSE.
That means that the results of three in every 1,000 A-level papers are wrong, which is intolerable and appalling. The QCA suggests that my constituent take legal advice with a view to seeking redress. What a waste of time. He does not want to engage in such a long process; he wants the system to be put right, and he would not have minded an apology rather than a letter of justification from the examination board.
The issue of delays in ministerial correspondence is one to which we return frequently in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made the point that the Government often appear to treat Members of Parliament with contempt. On 18 October, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Security on behalf of a man concerned about war widows' pensions. I have not yet received a reply, but my constituent has written back to me to say:
I am afraid your effort on my behalf in respect of the Secretary of State (DSS) on October 18 has so far brought no response, so I will be most grateful if he could be given a reminder.
During my service in the headquarters of a government department, the receipt of all mail was acknowledged by return of post and the contents dealt with in a prompt and respectful manner, whoever the writer and whatever the subject. We were never allowed to forget that the Taxpayer picked up the bill for our salaries!
There is a pensioner with some old-fashioned values. Is it not about time that the Government inculcated some of the same thinking in their administration and the way in which they deal with correspondence?
Due to the limited time available, I shall not regale the House with descriptions of all the other letters to which I await replies, but they cover the whole range of Departments. The Government talk about better government, but people know that they are experiencing worse government. That is not the only example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. Education funding is a hot topic in Dorset, and in the past month I have received more than 100 letters about the injustice of the funding formula. That matter dates back to the area cost adjustment.
The Minister will remember that, before the general election, the Prime Minister went to Cambridge, which had been adversely affected by the area cost adjustment. He led people there to believe that he was sympathetic to their cause and would do something about the injustice of the area cost adjustment as soon as he got into power because it was arbitrary and unfair. I do not have to remind the House that absolutely nothing has happened.

Therefore, the F40 campaign has been started, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is behind it.
I am a member of the campaign because my constituency contains one of the worst-funded local education authorities in the country. Indeed, in the recent settlement, Dorset received the lowest funding increase per primary school pupil and the second lowest funding increase for secondary schools. In a letter, the hon. Member for Stafford writes:
The formula for distributing the Revenue Support Grant to local authorities remains unchanged. However, data changes have been incorporated in the usual way. The important data change this year relates to the 1999 earnings data. Outrageously, the data benefits those authorities already gaining from the Area Cost Adjustment— so that gap between "them" and "us" widens.
There it is, from a Labour Member of Parliament. He has said that, despite the Prime Minister's promise about doing away with the area cost adjustment, the injustice of it has been made worse by his Government.
The concessionary fares scheme is another example of the Government's saying one thing and doing another. They announced that there would be centralised funding for concessionary fares and said that they would put into local government more money than the cost represented by the additional burdens of such fares for all pensioners. It just so happens that two authorities, one of which is East Dorset district council, have not received a penny of extra funding because they are outside the grant mechanism.
The Government will not listen to those authorities, despite the fact that more than 25 per cent. of the residents of East Dorset are over retirement age. In order to meet the new minimum statutory requirement, it is likely that East Dorset district council will have to increase its council tax sharply, which falls disproportionately on pensioners on fixed incomes who are expected to benefit from the new concessionary fares. That is a ludicrous situation.
Finally, I shall highlight the consequences of another example of the Government's systematic deception of the people. In the pre-Budget statement on 8 November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced new arrangements for vehicle excise duty. He said:
All those who have a car from 1200 cc to 1500 cc—that is, an extra 5 million cars—will be entitled to £55 off their annual licence fee from today. In total, 8½ million existing cars—one in three—will now pay £55 below the standard fee.—[Official Report, 8 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 324.]
A constituent who phoned me on Monday said that he had received his renewal notice and was expected to pay £155 rather than £100. He had been on to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which said that it had received more than 1,000 telephone calls that very day on this subject. My constituent was not the only person who had been grossly misled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The new system does not come in until July next year, when it will be backdated. However, if my constituent changes his car between now and July, he will not benefit from any of that backdated duty. As a result of trying to be too clever by half with their spinning, the Government have misled the people. That has created an extra burden for the DVLA and additional correspondence for Members of Parliament. The Government have the gall to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the


Opposition that we would not substantially streamline administration, improve efficiency and save billions of pounds when we got back into government.
I hope that my constituents have a merry Christmas, but it will be in spite of the Government's policies rather than because of them.

Mr. David Drew: I am aware of the time constraints, so I shall try to restrict my remarks to 10 minutes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Thank you. In case I forget at the end, I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all the hon. Members who have managed to endure the debate to the very end, a happy Christmas.
I shall raise two points briefly and two others in slightly more detail. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), as I have a redundancy problem with a well-known manufacturer in my constituency—Lister-Petter, the last independent diesel engine manufacturer in the country. It is a depressing scenario, but I have worked with others to achieve something of a recovery. Rather than lose all the jobs, we have managed to salvage 400 or so, but there are still 270 redundancies. That has brought it home to me how hard the redundancy process is and what should be done to ensure that all workers who go through that awful process are treated in the best way possible.
We have managed to put together a taskforce, and it is pleasing that the south-west regional development agency has become fully involved, and has given money to help the company and to buy the site. There ought to be manufacturing on that site, and if the Department of Trade and Industry comes up trumps in the next few days, we hope to pull together what has been a desperate situation. I hope that there will be a silver lining in the end.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire will share my concern that we spend a lot of time talking about help for agriculture—I spend much time defending farmers—but only a disproportionately small amount of time working on an industrial policy, with manufacturing at the forefront. We all know about the problems with the pound and the long-term under-investment in that sector, but that is no excuse for not trying to come up with a coherent strategy. We as a Government must bear some responsibility, although I hope that we shall try to do much more.
That idea is linked to my second point, which is about the need for a coherent energy policy. Again, the Government have been somewhat slow in that regard, but I pay due respect to them for beginning to produce the makings of what may be not only the right approach, but an approach that takes into account the producer, the consumer and the environment. It is in that context that we set so much store by renewables.
I must declare an interest, in that my biggest local employer is Berkeley, acting for British Nuclear Fuels. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary "come out" last Friday on "Any Questions" in support of nuclear power. I do not think it will be long before we must bite the bullet, and realise that a policy for effective energy production in future must involve a raft of different means. One will be nuclear energy; another will be renewables. There may also be a declining role for fossil fuels.
This week the Government responded to public examination of the south-west regional planning proposals made at a policy conference held last year, and also earlier this year. Such documents are always fairly opaque: it is necessary to read between the lines. At this point I must declare another interest, as a member of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I think we are disappointed that the housing provision figures were not entirely satisfactory, but the document also draws attention to some good signs. For instance, up to 50 per cent. of the increase in the amount of building is expected to extend to brownfield sites.
Such development is much more difficult in the south-west, because we have not the same number of such sites as areas elsewhere in the country, but a promising start has been made. Moreover, it has at long last been recognised that in my county of Gloucestershire, the core of any future development must involve the Gloucester-Cheltenham area. I do not want to be seen as dumping on my colleagues in the area, but I must say that, for all sorts of reasons—which have lain below the surface while both county and districts have reached their different planning policies—there has been a studious failure to realise the obvious, which is that where there is already a built-up area, it is necessary to start there and work outwards.
I personally favour a further dispersal of houses around the area concerned, rather than a concentration. However, I feel strongly that there should be a link with jobs and transport, and that planning should be more effective than it has been. Everyone seems to feel that it is now less about people than about developers, and less about doing what people want, than about imposing things on them, to a degree.
The Government should do something about that. They have made many good moves in initiating the monitoring of planning and design and ensuring the right levels of provision, but we must keep moving away from "predict and provide". Numbers tend to determine outcomes, which should be borne in mind by those who try to decide the most satisfactory way in which to operate the planning process. Surely that process is about building homes that people want, rather than homes that they apparently do not want, sucking in those who live elsewhere and encouraging them to commute many miles. We must grasp the nettle, and make changes for the better.
I want to spend slightly longer on my last point, although I shall no doubt be told if I go on too long. It relates directly to what appears to have been "the" debate of the end of the year: the debate on policing and law and order.
I shall make no particular comments about areas other than my own—I cannot speak from experience about what is happening in London, for instance—but I take a great interest in policing, and law and order, in my area. I have watched what has happened to police numbers, and it is very pleasing to see that in Gloucestershire, we are recruiting and beginning to put the people back on the establishment. Nevertheless, in the short term, numbers have decreased.
In the past few days—perhaps in response to the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition—some rather interesting posters have appeared, saying,
hohoho … more police officers.
Although I am not sure what the posters mean to the general public, I know that it would have been helpful if those who put them up had checked the planning


regulations. Enforcement action is being taken against the local Conservative party, which seems to have broken those regulations. In view of the police time that it takes to deal with such matters, perhaps those party members could themselves try harder to maintain law and order.
Policing is a real issue. When one goes out on patrol with police, as I do regularly, one sees policing in the raw, and what needs to be done not only to provide the right number of police, but to build their morale and ensure that they have all the right equipment.
The last point with which I shall leave my hon. Friend the Minister perhaps explains why I become so disdainful of attacks on the Government about policing. Of course there is a problem with budgets and a need for more resources. My own police authority has needed a sizeable increase in its precept. Consequently, last year, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and I visited the Home Office to explain why a rural sparsity factor was necessary. Ministers not only listened, but they introduced a rural sparsity factor in the settlement, which enabled us to recruit more police officers.
The underlying problem, however, has remained the same for many years. We have to deal with a serious problem created by the previous Government, who failed to deal with the consequences of police retirement policies. Police budgets have been heavily skewed by retirement costs. In Gloucestershire, about 19 per cent. of the police budget is immediately top-sliced to pay for retirement. Indeed, I should broaden that point to address an issue about which I get quite wound up—early retirement.
I believe that early retirement is as big a scandal as the way in which the state earnings-related pension scheme was handled, and the pensions mis-selling scandal. The early retirement scandal will haunt us for generations. Although it was a nice idea that people could be bought out of their jobs and go early—indeed, people fairly close to me did go early, from teaching, social work and the police—it was a bit foolhardy to expect that 10 years after they retired, they would disappear off the face of the earth. Although it is good that we now have a greater life expectancy, the increase in life expectancy has had a ratcheting effect on pensions, continually increasing pension costs.
Therefore, I take some of the attacks on the Government over policing with a pinch of salt. The matters that I have outlined are the real story, and the real reason why our police budgets are insufficient. Nevertheless, it is up to the Government to deal with that legacy. We have to try to deal with it. My comments are not an attack on police personnel, who make big contributions into an unfunded scheme. The message has to be spread abroad that that legacy is why police budgets are often depleted.

Mr. David Amess: I wish to raise various issues and ask various questions before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, and it would be a wonderful Christmas present for residents in Southend, West if the Minister would gee up Departments to give us straight answers to them.
I am delighted for Wolverhampton, Inverness, and Brighton and Hove, but I am very disappointed that Southend has not been declared a city. It deserves to

become a city, and I hope that that will happen. I know that Her Majesty the Queen enjoyed Southend when she visited us the year before last.
We have a real problem with staffing at Southend hospital. The problem is not unique to Southend, but is similar across the country. It is no good the Government saying that the problem is all down to the Conservative Government. A press release from the Royal College of Nursing states that
extra pay rises for senior nurses will help, but staff nurses will be disappointed by basic uplift.
In the past few days, I had cause to visit Southend hospital. I witnessed magnificent staff struggling under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. That is especially true of staff in the intensive care unit, who, if they were working about eight miles nearer to London, would get more money for the same, very specialised work. All the beds are occupied, and there is a crisis in Southend. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who will wind up the debate, will have a word with the Secretary of State for Health to see if he can do anything to help. The present initiatives are a disaster.
Postal services are also a problem. Mail delivery in the area has been terrible. It is no good writing letters, as they take three weeks to arrive. The whole thing is a shambles. I have a letter here from the Essex chamber of commerce which states:
Excuses for unacceptable levels of performance have been offered following the introduction of new technology and "improved" automation at various centres throughout the County. The experience of business in the performance of the Royal Mail has been universally unacceptable. Local businesses want the Royal Mail to enter into dialogue.
Recently, union and then management representatives came to the House to see me. Sorting operations were moved from Southend to Chelmsford and then to Romford. The bottom line is that people are not getting their letters as they used to. Many people, especially elderly people, depend on the service.
The unions put the problem down to the European Union working time directive, and management put it down to new practices. The Minister for Competitiveness used to work for the postal union, and has an inside track. The Royal Mail does not offer the service that it used to. It would be another wonderful present for my constituents if he could sort out the problem.
Lady Diana Brittan, the chairman of the National Lottery Charities Board, recently visited Southend and said that the town's
arts and music programme is very impressive and I can see that huge efforts are being made to make Southend a bit of a cultural capital.
I hope that Southend will hold an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall entitled, "I do like to be beside the Seaside". However, Lady Diana had to tell local residents that there was a problem with legislation when it came to applying for grants from the board. For example, she said that she would have to disappoint people about projects such as installing a lift in the local naval and military club. It is not that the board does not want to help local charities, but that the legislation needs to be examined. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have a word with his relevant colleague.
The Consumers Association has told me that the lack of a consumers Bill in the Queen's Speech was a gaping absence. One had been promised, to reform the Fair


Trading Act 1973, but it did not materialise, and neither did legislation to ban mortgage insurance tie-ins. None the less, I want to put in some special pleading.
The Select Committee on Health visited Cuba a few weeks ago. We flew with British Airways, which was privatised under Lord King and which I always considered to be first class. I was sceptical about complaints about its service. However, a number of Select Committee members ate the food on offer, and became ill. I was one of them.
There is no time to go through all the correspondence between the British Airways chairman, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, and myself, but the company's response was totally unsatisfactory. It is not good enough for a Member of the other place to write to a Member of Parliament saying that we must have had the germs before the trip, that the food had been cooked at 72 degrees, and all the other codswallop that he expects us to believe. I am sure that such problems would be addressed if the Government were to introduce a consumers Bill.
Earlier in the year, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), visited Southend to inspect the circumstances surrounding asylum seekers. It was a wonderful visit, and all sorts of assurances were given. We were very pleased. However, all that has fallen apart.
I am advised by the deputy mayor of Southend that apparently the dispersal programme has not been disbanded, but it has been abandoned, because the Government are ceasing to fund it. The regional assembly has agreed to keep it going without funding until April— a fat lot of good—in the hope that the Government will change their mind. In April, there were 470 known asylum seekers in Southend, and an indeterminate number of unknown ones. The known figure is now 619. The London boroughs are sending many people to Southend without the necessary resources, and now the Government, having said that they would help us, have washed their hands of the problem.
I believe that the Government's decision to award contracts directly to private landlords is a negation of their duty to the residents of the receiving towns. It is outrageous that they should bypass the local authorities who have the responsibility of care. I hope that the Minister will sort that out.
The decriminalisation of parking has been welcomed by some local residents and not others. A number of people in Southend are concerned that the maximum penalty charge notice is too low. In London the maximum is £60, but outside London it is £40. Moving to a decriminalised system will be costly, and a higher penalty charge may make the transition easier financially. Other concerns come from traffic wardens who are worried that they will lose flexibility if they become council parking attendants.
We all know that traffic wardens are not that popular with the public. I visited some of them recently and was deeply moved by all the activities, other than the issuing of tickets, in which they are involved. They deal with tax disc offences and abandoned and stolen vehicles. They carry out crowd and traffic control, and represent the police force. There is no doubt that we have fewer police than ever before in Essex, and in Southend in particular, and these changes will mean that we lose the good will of the traffic wardens. That simply is not good enough.
I was less than happy with the way in which the serious and important subject of cloning was dealt with by the House on Tuesday. I wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members are aware that a group of cross-party peers, together with a cardinal archbishop, an archbishop, an imam and a rabbi, wrote to the Prime Minister requesting a meeting. Four times they wrote to the Prime Minister, and he never agreed to a meeting. The Prime Minister said not so long ago that he was contrite, and willing to listen. Why, then, was he not prepared to listen on an issue that the whole House agrees is of huge importance?
A pearl is formed when a piece of grit gets into the oyster. The Prime Minister might not agree with what the religious leaders were going to say to him, but he should at least have been prepared to listen. If we do not let the grit in, we will never get the pearl out.
My final point is about animals. I hope that people will think carefully about purchasing pets this Christmas. Every year, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other bodies have to cope with abandoned pets. If any Members are thinking of acquiring a dog, they could do no better than contact Miss Pamela Townsend of the Willow Tree sanctuary in Great Yeldham, or Mrs. Mary Scully of the Enfield dog rescue centre. They have any number of rescued dogs and would be delighted if right hon. and hon. Members gave those dogs a good home. The Amess household has a black labrador, and we are seriously considering having a rescued dog over the Christmas period and beyond.
I hope that all animals, all human beings and all those who work in the House will have a very happy Christmas.

Mr. John Cryer: Returning to planet earth, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want briefly to raise some transport issues that relate to my constituency. The first is the local railway—the London, Tilbury and Southend railway—which has been in the area for a long time and was one of the first lines to be privatised.
Since privatisation, we have been promised new trains and, for the past three years, class 357 trains. We have been told that their arrival was imminent. A few months ago, the trains began to be put into service and promptly broke down. Unfortunately, the parent company of London Tilbury and Southend Rail, c2c—known as carriages too crowded—had scrapped much of its old slam-door stock, which was about 40 years old, so when the new class 357s were taken out of service old stock had to be reintroduced. As there are not enough trains, there is further diminution of a service that has become steadily worse over many years.
As an illustration of how the railways are seen by people in outer London and Essex, it will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear that, a few years ago, when one of the Essex radio stations organised a poll to find the most unpopular person in the county, the then managing director of LTS finished second—just behind Saddam Hussein. It would be interesting to take another poll to see whether the present managing director could shove Saddam Hussein into second place.
The railway crosses my constituency at Rainham and I was a founder member of the Rainham rail users group—superb campaigners who put pressure on c2c and LTS, unfortunately without much effect. Rail users have shown immense patience and forbearance. One member of the


group informed me recently that she had taken to travelling in the guard's van because the carriages are so crowded. On one occasion, she counted 36 people who were crammed into the guard's van of a four-car train when there should have been at least eight cars.
Trains are becoming dangerously overcrowded, yet the directors of the parent company, Prism Rail, recently made tens of millions of pounds by selling the company to National Express—money that should have been invested in the railway. Meanwhile, my constituents—like those of other hon. Members—continue to suffer overcrowding, delays and late and cancelled trains. That is the result of the privatisation process planned by the previous Conservative Government.
We all know that the whole London tube system has suffered a long history of under-investment and has been deteriorating for a long time, but recently the District line has become much worse. The line runs through three stations in my constituency—Elm Park, Hornchurch and Upminster Bridge. Recently, delays and cancellations have increased. There has also been a tendency to indicate that trains are going to Upminster—the end of the line—when in fact they are being stopped at Barking. That is becoming quite dangerous. Many people, especially women travelling home alone late at night, are abandoned on the platform at Barking for lengthy periods waiting for an Upminster train. Some of the women who work in the Palace have had that experience.
We all know the problem—underfunding during a long period—as the managing director of the underground network, Derek Smith, and the Mayor, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), have made clear. My objection to the current situation is that we should be getting on with investing in the underground. Everyone knows that the fault lies with the previous Conservative Administration, but we have been in government for three years and we are still talking about how to make that investment—we should be doing it now.
The 324 bus—on a former Green Line route that runs from east London into Essex—serves Wennington, a hamlet in my constituency and Rainham itself. The bus service was run by Town and Country Buses, which was taken over by Arriva. The problem is that Arriva does not have enough buses or drivers to service the route, so it drafts in buses from other parts of the country. There is a Heinz 57 varieties bus livery—with no correct signs on the front of the buses.
That is dangerous. There are many elderly people in Wennington and Rainham. When an unnumbered bus with the Aylesbury and The Vale livery arrives at a stop in Essex, it is slightly confusing—especially for people with poor eyesight.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: If the bus is wrongly numbered, it would be better if people could not read the number.

Mr. Cryer: There are also fewer buses on the route—if one can see them.
London Transport has been pretty appalling. During the summer, I made it clear that I wanted a new timetable published and that I wanted to get my hands on it so that I could distribute it around Wennington and the south of

Rainham. I asked by letter, by telephone and again by letter, but so far I have had nothing from London Transport. It simply is not good enough for it to fail my constituents in Wennington and Rainham, many of whom are elderly and many of whom are in a very difficult position because of the decline of the service.
I ask the Minister to relay to Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions the points that I have made about the transport service in my constituency.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: As time is short, I shall keep my remarks as brief as I can.
I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, with whom I have debated on many occasions. He has always treated my remarks with great courtesy and I am grateful to him for it. However, the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) struck a chord with me.
This debate is important. It is, after all, an occasion when many of us could be doing other things, and we come to the Chamber for one specific reason this late in the day—because we believe that something matters sufficiently to our constituents to cause us to go through the fiction, and it is a fiction, of postponing the moment when the House of Commons adjourns for the recess.
I cannot imagine that any Member of the House, other than in a dire emergency, would allow his constituency surgery to be conducted by anyone other than himself. A researcher could do that work, but it would not look or feel right. The constituent would not understand it. In previous years, and certainly under the previous Administration, I could always say that I knew that when I raised a matter on the Christmas Adjournment a member of the Cabinet—the Leader of the House, the President of the Council—would be there, listening carefully to all the deliberations. That may be a fiction, but it is a necessary fiction and a courteous fiction. I believe that the Leader of the House should have been present today. Although I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister will do an excellent job in her place, appearances do matter.
Today, I want to bring before the House the subject of the Kingskerswell bypass. It is not the first time that I have raised the subject in the House of Commons; I should like to think that it might be the last time, but I fear that it will not.
The Kingskerswell bypass, as anyone who knows my part of the world knows, is the four to four-and-a-half mile stretch of road that runs between Newton Abbott and Torquay. It is the last remaining link—the missing link, if you will—in the M5. Indeed, if one was giving a person in the west of Scotland directions to Newton Abbott, one would say, "drive south until you come to a roundabout, and if it is the summer, wait there for half an hour and turn right." That is the problem with that part of the world. There is a missing link.
My research has shown me that there has been a Kingskerswell bypass in prospect in Devon since at least 1951 and it was probably mooted some 15 years before that. Once upon a time, it would have been a bypass to bypass the old village of Kingskerswell. Now, because of the increase in housing, that stretch of road virtually cuts the village in two. It produces huge traffic flows. In 1998


I gave the House the figures; I shall not quote them in detail today. I was able to say on that occasion that some 35,000 vehicles a day used that road.
Usually, when one mentions the need for a bypass, the figures for traffic flows increase in the summer and drop off for the rest of the year. Interestingly, in this case there is at most a differential of only 10 per cent. This is such a logjam that it is there all the year round. It condemns the people who live in the area to having their community subjected to extreme traffic pollution. It produces extreme inconvenience for people travelling to and from work, shopping or school.
The logjam causes more than inconvenience in every sense of the word. It also affects the potential for economic regeneration. Whereas most bypasses merely squeeze the paste down the toothpaste tube, as it were, and push the bottleneck on, if this bypass was built the whole of south Devon would be opened to economic regeneration, because it really is the last link.
No less an authority than Edward Chorlton, who is the county environment director for Devon and a national figure, said:
The Newton Abbot to Torquay corridor already experiences severe congestion throughout much of the day and … is directly affecting the locational decisions of local businesses, with a number of companies having relocated away from Torbay as a consequence of difficulties experienced in maintaining a reliable and predictable means of highway access …
From the above it can be appreciated that the Newton Abbott to Torquay corridor is not only of great importance in terms of accommodating movement within the area but also of strategic importance in terms of providing the principal connection between Torbay and the wider area of Devon and the rest of the Country.
He concludes:
It is also crucial to ensuring that the development potential of the area is unlocked.
In no sense can that be said to be disputed, let alone to be a matter of party political dispute. When I raised the issue at far greater length in April 1998, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), said:
Traffic flows through Kingskerswell have increased considerably in recent years, from 20,000 vehicles a day in the mid-1980s to nearly 35,000 in 1995. Growth on such a scale is unsustainable, and shows graphically why we must tackle such problems with new policies and attitudes.—[Official Report, 1 April 1998; Vol. 309, c. 1230.]
What could have been done, and what can be done?
For many years—in what was, frankly, a fiction—the Kingskerswell bypass was reasonably high up the programme, but was never going to be achieved. In 1995, I think, the Government said that that was nonsense and that only bypasses that stood a chance of success in competing with other projects should be included and, therefore, the Kingskerswell bypass was taken out of the programme. However, the outcry and the strength of the case was such that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the then Minister with responsibility for the west country, specifically had the rules on the private finance initiative altered so that a local authority could use them. He did so with all-party support, and Devon county council was entirely in favour of it. The council was legitimately concerned about how the funding for the necessary work could be secured, but there was a consensus.
In 1996, when my right hon. Friend visited Kingskerswell, there was every prospect that work on the bypass would begin by the beginning of 2001. As I speak, even if matters were expedited far more efficiently than some people think they might be, it would be five, six or even seven years before work could start. After the Government's moratorium on any form of road building, they now say that any schemes under the private finance initiative can proceed only when every other avenue has been explored. In short, the PFI route, if it is used, will take a long time.
The infuriating fact is that almost everyone locally agrees that the bypass is needed. Usually, on such occasions, the lesser crested aphid springs out of the undergrowth, saying "It may be tarmac to you, my son, but it means extinction for me and my species." Nothing like that has happened in Kingskerswell, where there is a complete unanimity of view. Time and again, local people ask what they can do.
On one occasion, it seemed as though the PFI represented the only way forward. It is grinding its way slowly forward, but we find that the Government—as a sinner who repents at least in part—now realise that sometimes bypasses are not an environmental blot, but an environmental necessity; they improve the quality of life. We hear that, after all, the money is available to build bypasses. So it may be, but there is not much money available to build them in Devon, except in north Devon, where a small bypass will be built near Barnstaple according to the recent local transport capital expenditure announcement.
Once upon a time, the Kingskerswell bypass was the premier scheme in Devon, but the other one is now at the top of the queue. Of course, even a long time in politics has not yet made me a cynic, and I say that with all the insincerity at my command. I accept, therefore, that it is entirely a coincidence that that bypass is in the seat of a Liberal Member of Parliament and that the leader of Devon county council, which is controlled by the Liberals, also lives in that part of the world. Perhaps other hon. Members will have something to say about that. I do not accuse the Minister of being part of that chicanery, but I want the Government to tell me what they think my constituents should do. How long will it be before there is some prospect of the project being expedited?
As I understand it, there is some hope to be found, buried deep in a letter written to the chief executive of Torbay borough council, announcing the 2001–02 local transport capital expenditure settlement. It states:
The level of resources the Government has provided through the 10 Year Plan means that we are able to fund many more schemes than was usual in the past.
An addendum to the letter goes on to state:
We note your intention to continue assessing congestion problems on the A380 corridor. We welcome the Partnership working that has been demonstrated, in particular, the development of a long-term strategy for the Northern corridor through the use of consultants and cross boundary working with Devon County Council. We are keen to understand the full range of difficulties experienced along the corridor and to explore an Integrated Transport package to reduce congestion, increase accessibility and assist regeneration in Torbay. We look forward to working with you and Devon County Council on this in the future.
I do not quite know what that means. It might be a realistic formula expressed in Whitehall jargon, saying that relief is on the way, or it might be the most shameless


pack of waffle. If hon. Members want to know what is going on, they can read the debates that have taken place in the House over the years, or take a day off some time and go down there, sit in a traffic jam and see for themselves.
I shall tell the Minister what I want him to do today. It would be churlish in the extreme for me to ask him to tell me now what is happening. It is not his job to know that. However, the reason that I am here now when I could be elsewhere is to ask him for an assurance that he will write to the relevant Minister—I assume that that is the noble Lord Whitty—to ask him to write to me and tell me what the Government think should happen. At the moment, many people think that nothing is happening. The case for this bypass is overwhelming on every ground possible, not only for my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, but for the economic regeneration of south Devon. What do the Government think about that? I ask for only one assurance from the Minister—but I do ask for it.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) and the citizens of Wolverhampton on their city status. I say that as the Member representing St. Albans, which has had city status for several hundred years, so I know the feeling that that status gives.
Two weeks ago, I met all the St. Albans secondary school head teachers. They are very concerned about the problem of recruitment and retention of teachers. Each head teacher detailed unfilled vacancies that had little chance of being filled. Advertising and re-advertising elicited, at most, one application and often none at all. That process is expensive and time-consuming, and leaves school managers with an almost intractable problem.
In the past, there have been shortages in certain subjects, typically the sciences. Now, there are shortages across the board. In one school, a parent is providing the tuition so that the school does not have to send a class home. The use of supply teachers is in the same sorry state, with a complete shortage in all specialities. Three reasons are given for that. The first, and most important, is the exceptionally high cost of housing. The second is the low morale and low self-esteem of the profession; the third, the sheer volume of paperwork that now forms part of teaching.
The provision of key worker housing must be pursued with some vigour by the Government and by local authorities. Chris Holmes of Shelter said recently that if we did not address that problem, we should affect the very economic success and stability of our country, particularly in the south-east. Each local authority district plan must enshrine a target and plan for implementing the provision of a substantial amount of key worker housing. In addition, funding must be set aside by local authorities and the Housing Corporation for the provision of such housing. Only through positive action shall we begin to address the problem.
I mentioned the morale and self-esteem of teachers earlier. I salute all of them. They work exceedingly hard, are dedicated professionals and are responsible for

inspiring and educating our most precious possession: our children. My friend and colleague, Christine Hood, the regional secretary of the National Union of Teachers, tells me repeatedly of teachers who just want to teach. They feel undervalued and blamed for all the problems that are connected with children.
I want to pay tribute to Bob Hawkes, the head teacher of Verulam school in St. Albans, who retires today after 35 years as a teacher, the last 12 of which he spent in his present post. He has a well-deserved high reputation and students who were taught by him were fortunate indeed. His retirement marks a sad loss to education in Hertfordshire.
On transport, 17,000 of my constituents travel by Thameslink into the city each day. Travel has been exceptionally difficult since the Hatfield disaster. Overcrowding on our trains, which is usually quite bad at peak times, has been made worse by travellers from Hatfield and Stevenage using the service. I use it regularly and travelled in today by train, and I am pleased to report that the service was almost back to normal. I regularly meet train operators to ensure that the levels of reliability, service and safety are as high as possible.
Travel by bus within St. Albans is hampered by the narrow streets of our old city and by selfish parking. We are also disadvantaged in Hertfordshire by not quite qualifying for a substantial rural bus subsidy, and we have no large towns to support a large city bus service. In addition, we do not qualify for the new market town subsidy because the population of our towns is too large to qualify. Our economic success means that people need to be able to travel across Hertfordshire, as well as north to south. Many Hertfordshire residents would use public transport were it better provided. One local operator, Sovereign buses, has made a huge investment in a new fleet of kneeling buses, which are more easily accessed, comfortable and fuel efficient. We need more such investment.
St. Albans took the lead in the virtual bus, which originated in my constituency and was launched in St. Albans by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) when she was Transport Minister. That model of good practice is now being used in many other places.
St. Albans has the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom. We welcome the extra spending on pensions, health and education, in particular the money that has gone straight to schools. St. Albans prospers well under the new Labour Government.

Dr. Julian Lewis: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), who is warm-hearted and sincere in speaking on behalf of his constituents.
One local issue is of fundamental importance in my constituency—the proposal by Associated British Ports to build a huge container port at Dibden bay, on Southampton water, which is on the edge of the New Forest. The distribution of population in my constituency is unusual. The area is largely taken up by the heavily protected forest region. More than 80 per cent. of my constituents are compressed into the long line of villages from Calshot and Fawley in the south, along the Waterside, to the town of Totton in the north. Planning


restrictions in the forest mean that housebuilding is overwhelmingly confined to Totton and the Waterside corridor. As so many of my constituents live in that narrowly restricted area, the impact on their lives of the closure of strategic gaps between the villages, and of extra burdens placed on road and rail links, is disproportionately heavy.
When I became acquainted with the Dibden bay proposals in 1995, it seemed obvious that the adverse effects that they would have on people who live in Totton and along the Waterside would decisively outweigh any possible advantage. Therefore, it was also obvious that those people who proposed to build the huge container port would have to produce an overriding national economic case if the development was to have a chance of proceeding.
ABP briefed me at least three times in 1996 and 1997. The nub of its argument was that each of the small number of major container companies will use only one port of entry into the United Kingdom and that, unless Dibden bay were built to expand Southampton's container capacity on the other side of Southampton water, not only would Southampton fail to obtain the extra business, but it would lose its existing business to competing ports. On the face of it, that seemed to be a strong argument in ABP's favour.
However, more than a year ago, the picture was dramatically transformed. The prospect arose that the redundant oil refinery site—a brownfield site—at Shell Haven in Essex might become a new container port on a scale substantially larger than Dibden bay. That prospect was welcomed, with appropriate provisos about local concerns, by the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who, by a fortunate coincidence, happens to be in her place at this very moment.

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in alerting me to the fact that he would be mentioning my constituency and me. I put it to him that, although many in my constituency warmly welcome the proposed development at Shell Haven, which would create up to 10,000 jobs, there are significant and genuine environmental, traffic and social concerns. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that those should be taken into account.

Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. It has been a pleasure working with her in past months to try to resolve these matters to the mutual benefit of both our sets of constituents. However, the balance tips overwhelmingly in favour of the development taking place in her constituency, provided appropriate ameliorating measures can be taken to safeguard people living nearby. I am sure that she accepts that, in my constituency, there would be huge effects that could not possibly be ameliorated in any circumstances.
When the Shell Haven proposals were first mooted, I was astonished by the way in which ABP in Southampton derided the practicability of building a container port at Shell Haven and then tried to claim that, even if it were built, it would make no difference to the overriding national economic case in favour of Dibden bay. It became clear to me that ABP was wholly bent on pushing through the scheme, irrespective of the existence of more suitable alternatives. Later, I shall mention one

possible motivation for the company's rigidly blinkered approach. When Shell Haven was first mooted, ABP objected on the grounds that the traffic outflow would be too heavy for the M25 to cope with, and that excessive dredging would also be involved. Such claims sounded strange coming from a company that tried to tell my constituents that the mere A326 could cope with massive container traffic and that Dibden bay would be capable of receiving the new generations of large container ships that it would face during its years of operation.
Shell Haven will be larger than Dibden bay, and it is possible that it will come into service sooner than Dibden bay. In addition, I have been assured authoritatively that Shell Haven by itself will be able to absorb all the projected additional container traffic for the south-east for the next 15 to 20 years. So confident of that is the Port of London authority that it anticipates Shell Haven opening on a staggered basis, a few berths at a time, as and when the extra capacity becomes needed over the next two decades. That fact alone must be sufficient to destroy the argument that Dibden bay must be inflicted on the residents of Totton and the Waterside in the national economic interest because of the lack of any viable alternative.
The story does not end there. We now know that there are to be substantial expansions in container capacity at no fewer than three additional sites: Harwich, Felixstowe and Tilbury. In addition, further development at Thamesport remains a possibility. None of those options involves the destruction of a natural habitat, the overwhelming of inadequate A-roads, or the bisecting of towns and villages such as Totton and Marchwood by endless convoys of lorries and railway wagons, all of which would be inevitable were Dibden bay to come on stream. Yet, according to ABP, all that extra capacity makes no difference to its case that the Dibden bay development is essential. One wonders how gigantic the extra capacity being created by ports around the south-east and east of England would have to be before ABP allowed such expansion to have any effect on its fixation with developing Dibden bay—now that the company's rubbishing of Shell Haven as a container port has itself been discredited.
ABP claims that it is not planning to transfer its existing smaller container operation on the other side of Southampton water to Dibden bay in order to sell off the existing container port location for vastly profitable property development, as has happened to other parts of Southampton port in the past. It claims that that could easily be prevented by the Secretary of State. However, how could the Secretary of State—or anyone else— possibly know what the directors of ABP will do in 10 years' time if Dibden bay is up and running? Nothing would prevent the existing Southampton container port from being closed down and the land being used to make fortunes for those running ABP.
That explanation alone supplies logic to ABP's position. If the real objective is to free up expensive land in Southampton to make a financial killing, that would explain why the opening of Shell Haven and all the other new container facilities would, in the words of ABP, "make no difference" to the need for Dibden bay. Indeed, the existence of new container ports elsewhere would make it easier to argue in 10 years' time that the old Southampton container port had to be closed and developed precisely because there was not enough trade to keep it busy, as well as the new Dibden bay terminal.
It is preposterous to say that there is an overriding national economic requirement to build on the unsuitable site at Dibden bay regardless of the fact that other sites are to be constructed or expanded. I believe that ABP would continue to argue for the development of Dibden bay even if 50 new ports were being built or expanded. Its determination to develop Dibden bay has little, if anything, to do with a genuine need to meet future increases in necessary container capacity.
There are no proposals from ABP currently to turn the pitifully inadequate A326 even into a dual carriageway, although it used to say that it would do that. Perhaps that is being held back as a great concession to be made to the community in due course. I have always taken the view that nothing less than a prefabricated tunnel under Southampton water would do, connecting any container port to Southampton's major road and rail links. Even then, the light pollution, never-ending noise, unsightly container stacks and cranes at the edge of the New Forest and environmental destruction would add up to a vision of hell for the thousands of people unfortunate enough to live nearby.
A few years ago, before Shell Haven and the other facilities came on to the scene, and before it was apparent that there were alternatives, it might have been arguable to inflict all this suffering on our communities in the constituency of New Forest, East. There is now no case for it. I urge the deputy Leader of the House to convey that message in the strongest possible terms to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, because he will have the final say.

Mr. Alan Hurst: It is always a pleasure to be called in the final end-of-term Adjournment debate, if I may call it that. I am always glad when my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), addresses the House, as he usually does on these occasions. I am sorry that he is not in his place now. I hope that the House agrees that he excelled himself today. By my count, he mentioned 10 different subjects, to say nothing of his gastric problems on the way to Cuba. If I was unfortunate enough to miss any of the subjects that he raised, I know that I will be able to read about each of them in the local newspaper when it appears next week.
These debates are great opportunities for raising a number of issues, and I do not wish to be over-frivolous. I usually stick closely to the confines of Braintree or Essex. Today, however, I shall speak about international matters. I refer neither to Suffolk nor Hertfordshire when I say that, but to events that have occurred on the other side of the Atlantic.
I am not certain to what extent the events in the United States during November and December have been discussed in the House. However, I think a few minutes to enable us to pause for thought about the implications for us, and perhaps our own constitution, would not be unhelpful.
I refer, of course, to the American election. If one were teaching civics to those unfamiliar with the workings of democracy, it would be difficult to explain how the candidate who had the most votes was defeated and the

candidate who had fewer votes won, but we should keep clearly in our minds over the coming three or four years the proposition that the loser won and the winner lost.
I understand that the United States constitution is different from ours and that, for reasons that may have been pertinent some 200 or more years ago, it was right to preserve the autonomy of states in the selection of the federal president. There may well have been a case for that then. It would be impertinent of me to tell the Americans whether there is a case for it now, or whether they should reconsider the matter. I should have thought that they would certainly contemplate it.
Even more worrying is the electoral and then the judicial process. There is no one in the House who has not been into an election count. Before we race ahead with internet voting and goodness knows what other horror that is occasionally proposed, we might pause for reflection on some of the benefits of our own system.
I do not say this in a patronising or colonial way to our cousins across the Atlantic, but is there anything to beat a piece of paper on which appear one, two, three, four or however many names, and on which all the voter is required to do is put a cross against the name of his preferred candidate? That seems a straightforward notion. It does not require information technology—in fact, it was devised for those who were illiterate, which is why the cross is the symbol. The voter has to do nothing other than mark a cross on a ballot paper to indicate his choice.
Many of us have attended counts of votes when there may have been some uncertainty about the result, or about the vote itself. We know what happens: if the voter puts a tick instead of a cross, it is counted; if he puts only half a cross, it is counted; if he draws a smiling face, it is counted; if he puts the cross in the right box but in the wrong place, it is counted; if the mark is very feeble and frail, it is counted. We count a vote if the intention is clear for all to see.
We count quickly. Were there not six or seven recounts in 1966 in Peterborough, all of which took place within 24 hours? We could count all the votes cast in a general election in this country again and again, I expect, before the clock had gone round one more time.
The entire matter in the United States was confused. In part, I blame the media for confusing the issues. The media were blamed for calling the state of Florida before it had been counted. They based their projection on the fact that the exit polls predicted a win for the Democratic candidate, but the polls assumed that people had voted for the candidate for whom they thought they had voted, but when the votes were counted, the result was not quite the same.
The catalogue of abuses is horrifying by our standards. We have not had a corruption case since Oxford in 1924, when there was a certain amount of treating of electors by way of liquor and otherwise, and the Member was unseated. We have a fairly good record, but in the state of Florida the first move was to disqualify from voting anyone who had a conviction, even if it went back decades. The view may have been taken that people in poorer circumstances may be more likely to have convictions, but at least one of the candidates narrowly avoided one of those and presumably would have been unable to vote in the state of Florida had matters gone further than they did.
The Americans have terribly artistic ballot papers. One needs an advanced degree in technology to work out exactly where the hole should be punched. What amazes me most of all and confuses everybody is the ludicrous word "chad". I will not repeat that most people thought that that was a state in Africa. The moment that people started talking about hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads, the brain turned off. I was confused until the other day, when I was primitively using a hole punch. I hole-punched a piece of paper, but the punched part did not quite fall off and hung there. I guess that that is what is meant by a hanging chad. It is pretty clear that I intended to punch that paper and make a hole, but the punched piece did not quite fall off. The President appointed—I use that term rather than President-elect because English usage is important, and "President-elect" does not properly describe the incoming incumbent—and his supporters wished to exclude pieces of paper with chads that had not dropped off. Indeed, the dimpled chad is one in which the punch has made an impression, but not gone all the way through.
I am not making a party political point by saying that, in this country, there would be no argument from any candidates or their agents about who those votes were for, as the intention would be clear. I am not going to say whether a degree of dishonesty was involved, as that will all come out. No doubt, the votes it, the state of Florida will be counted fairly soon, and we shall know very well what happened there. However, the matter says heavy things about the United States. Some hon. Members will know that I have always been pro-American in my views on international affairs, but I am horrified by what took place. In this country, we have a spirit of respect for our constitution and, ultimately, do no allow our partisan preference to override that. If one is in an election count and a vote is clearly for one's opponent, one says that is for him or her. One does not seek to argue for the indefensible.
However, the matter gets worse and goes beyond miscalculating votes, excluding obvious votes, excluding electors from the register and having low-level riots to prevent counts. The highest court in the United States was involved in what can only be a blatantly partisan decision to grant an injunction to stop the votes being counted. When that level is reached, what is the teacher—or, as the Americans say, the professor—in a mid-western college to tell his civics class? Does he say that the USA has a system of law and separation of powers but that, if one side loses an election, it stops the votes being counted? Is that how we elect the leader of the free world?
We have to learn to be cautious about issues that we sometimes rush into without thinking. Here, whatever one may say about individual results, the judiciary is an entirely non-political body. In the course of my professional life practising law I have come across and known personally a number of judges. I know that many, if not most, of them have strong political opinions. Some stood for Parliament before they sat on the bench. I have known judges who were active communists, as well as judges who were active Conservatives. However, when they sit on the bench, those views are left behind. I would have no fear about an election dispute in this country, such as that in the Winchester constituency at the last election. It would be unlikely to go before a court because it would be judged according to the law and the ethics behind the law.
Earlier in our debate, hon. Members described what they perceive as the shortcomings of our present system. There is always a case for debate and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is now in his place, referred to the increasing power of the Executive. It is worth having that debate. I remember taking my history A-level in 1963, when the question on the paper was: "The power of the Executive has increased and is increasing. Should it be diminished?" That referred to the 18th century. The issue about the power of the Executive has always been with us.
We sometimes need to stand back and take pride in our constitution and, above all, in the political climate in which we operate, where we do not endlessly play the man—I use that phrase in its broadest sense—to the extent that that becomes more important than the overriding constitutional principles. I fear that events in the United States are a travesty of all the things that we hold dear and which that country has purported to hold dear, and that they create such a stain on its position that it will not be able to reverse matters easily.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: We are drawing towards the end of a debate that has, predictably, covered a huge range of issues. I agree that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) managed to give us a dose of grapeshot that came in quickfire succession. If he spoke about 10 issues, they were completely seamless and flowed without any breaking for breath. As has been pointed out, however, they will all be in the papers next week.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made an interesting point, which I am sure will be discussed long and hard for many weeks and months to come. With regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) about the reform process in the House, I remind hon. Members that if we have a problem in this country, it is a lack of separation between the legislature and the Executive, as well as a lack of accountability.
If the United States has a problem, it is more serious. I refer to the politicisation of the judiciary, which permeates not only the electoral system. As a basic matter of human rights, it shocked me that, in a country that has increasingly resorted to the reintroduction and use of the death penalty, the decision on whether an execution should proceed lies with a politician who is actively campaigning for election. That cannot be fair either to the condemned person or to the politician, who will not be in a position to make a balanced judgment. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why Americans are unable to take up observer status in the Council of Europe, which is trying to achieve a continent that is free of the death penalty. That interesting development will also be discussed in the coming weeks and months.
The hon. Member for Banbury said that he did not think that enough rebellions were occurring in the House. That was a little unfair, as a couple of fairly serious rebellions have occurred, one of which related to the reduction of benefits for single mothers. The other recent example was the privatisation of air traffic control. If the Conservatives had stood their ground in the Lords on that issue, we might have been successful in stopping the Government until their decision was properly put to the electorate at the next election. As the Conservatives found in 1983,


it is much harder for Back Benchers to rebel when the Government have a huge majority, as they will suffer the opprobrium of falling out with the Government without winning the vote. At least when there is a smaller majority, those who rebel may gain the satisfaction of changing the policy, which makes their decision more worth while. Nevertheless, I accept that some of the reforms are more cosmetic than real.
I think that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has left. I can only thank him for the tribute that he paid to the community politics of north Devon Liberal Democrats, which are clearly successful as they have achieved more than him in securing the roads that they need.
I should like to share some glory with the citizens of Wolverhampton. The borders of my constituency are not all that far from Inverness, which is also extremely delighted to have secured city status. Inverness is probably one of the fastest growing communities in the United Kingdom. It has doubled in size in the past 20 years, which may surprise people who do not often venture so far north.
I want to address a couple of important issues in my constituency. One of them affects all constituencies and both of them affect rural constituencies. The first is the increased cost of public and private transport in rural areas, especially in respect of people on low incomes, benefits or income support. I raised the matter in correspondence with the Chancellor, social security Ministers and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Indeed, four weeks ago I raised it in Scottish questions, but I did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister of State, Scotland Office, who deliberately misunderstood my question and proceeded to make a great deal of fun of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and what I believe she described as her step grandmother's association with a filling station in Inverurie, in my constituency. I did not know that there was such a being as a step grandmother, but, apparently, the hon. Lady has one. The Government have now openly acknowledged that they pursued a policy of increasing the price of fuel, not exclusively as an environmental tax, but as a revenue-raising measure, in part so that they did not have to increase the standard or higher rate of income tax—a pledge made at the general election. They admitted that they could not contemplate cutting tax on petrol because they needed the money to fund schools and hospitals, not for environmental purposes.
My point is serious and needs to be addressed—social security Ministers should consider it. Taking such a policy decision has significant cost of living implications for people on very low incomes in a way that income tax does not. Indeed, some of those people do not pay income tax, but they have to pay transport costs, especially if they live in rural areas. They must either pay increased public transport costs, because the fuel price has had to be absorbed by bus and train operators, or use a car, because there is no public transport option.
As one of my constituents starkly pointed out, although the price of unleaded petrol has eased back a bit, over the past five years in some rural areas, it has increased by nearly 30p a litre. Let us consider the example of someone who uses a fairly modest amount of petrol—in many cases, petrol is involved because the option to use public

transport is not available—to drive a relatively small and economical car 20 to 30 miles a day to his place of work, where he is on such a low income that he receives income support. It is obvious that the cost involved could be an extra £5 or even £10 a week compared with that in 1995. However, the increase in basic income support for all cost of living increases over that period is less than £5.
As the Parliamentary Secretary will understand, as a consequence, the real value of income support has been seriously cut for people living in rural areas. I hope that he will draw that to the attention of social security Ministers and suggest that they review whether the calculation of those payments should take account of that. That point applies not only to people living in rural areas, but to everyone who receives income support. However, it has a serious impact on people living in rural areas.
If the Parliamentary Secretary has conversations with the Minister of State, Scotland Office, it is important that he says that my point related not to different prices of petrol in different parts of the country, but to the differential in the price of petrol now compared with that of five years ago. I shall be seeing the Minister of State later to comment on a by-election result, so I may have an opportunity to point that out myself. I openly acknowledge that that differential is due not entirely to tax, but to a combination of tax and world market prices.
Before the winding-up speeches begin, I should mention the state of British beef exports or, rather, the lack of them. I want hon. Members to take on board the fact that, although they may believe that the ban on British beef exports has been lifted—in law, that is correct—that ban is, for all practical purposes, still in place. In the present circumstances, it is simply impossible to export significant quantities of British beef because the regime and the conditions under which we choose to operate in this country make it impossible to deliver anything approaching a competitive price for prime Scottish beef of the quality that people were used to before the ban was imposed. Hon. Members may not appreciate why that is the case, so I shall explain one or two points.
I believe that the time is right for the Government to seek a Europe-wide approach to an agreement on regulations for the raising, slaughtering and butchering of beef that will apply equally to every member state of the European Union, rather than unequally as at present. The time is appropriate because it is now apparent that the problem of BSE is much more acute on the continent than had previously been acknowledged.
I take no satisfaction from the rise of BSE cases now confirmed in France. I accept that the French Government acknowledge the problem and are dealing with it. I am not suggesting that we ban French beef, but we need a regime that is safe for all consumers and fair to all producers. In all probability, on the admission of the French Government, the number of BSE cases in France this year will be higher than the number that have occurred in the United Kingdom, yet France is not required to go through the procedures that British beef producers have to go through to produce beef for export.
There are four major prime meat producers in my constituency: Kepak Inverurie Scotch Meat, Scotch Premier Meat and Donald Russell, which was the biggest single exporter of quality beef before the ban was imposed. I have a letter to me dated 6 December from


Mr. Hans Baumann, the managing director of Donald Russell, who as a matter of interest is Swiss. He says:
For a long time I have made my feelings known to you about how damaging I consider the compromise being made between the eligibility of our Beef for export and my quality criteria for the long term future of the Scottish Industry.
I have said many times that we are systematically destroying the "Brand Scotland". Our quality image, our reputation, and the opportunity to achieve a premium price may well be lost forever. My views are now being re-iterated by many of our customers.
He quotes a Belgian importer, Marie-Jeanne Cleemput of Van Engelandt, who says:
Price is the most important element, but there is also the question of quality. Scottish beef is not as marbled or mature as it was before: it is not up to the same standard and that is what our restaurants came to tell us when the import ban was lifted.
That is because we agreed to allow, beef for export to be slaughtered only in dedicated slaughterhouses, of which there are only two operational in the United Kingdom. One is in Cornwall—hon. Members will appreciate that that is a long way from Aberdeenshire—and the other is in Strathavon in Ayrshire, which is over 150 miles from Inverurie.
Control is no longer with the meat producer. Traditionally, producers would finish the meat in co-operation with the farmers in the fields before slaughtering the beef at a local slaughterhouse. They prescribed the conditions, with the hanging and the butchering being under their control, and produced the quality product that people came to expect.
An Italian importer, Francesa Piccolini who is in north Italy, said that before the ban Scotch beef was the finest product she could find in the world. She scoured the world during the beef ban and was unable to find a quality product comparable to Scotch beef.
It is ironic that we can get that quality at home—it is available to consumers in the United Kingdom. We can get it in excellent, pre-packed form by mail order from Donald Russell in my constituency. I highly recommend it. However, our exporters cannot get it because the correct procedures are not followed. I urge the Minister to raise this serious matter with the Minister of Agriculture. It needs to be reviewed in the interests not only of British beef producers, but customers abroad who value quality Scotch beef. It is a matter of fairness and balance between safety and the needs of producers across the EU. The time is right to do that.
The French and the Germans must now acknowledge that they share our problem, and that they need the same result. I hope that the Minister will tell me that he has spoken to the Minister of Agriculture, with whom I have been asking for a meeting for three months without success.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Before I touch on some of the other important and wide-ranging issues raised today, let me say something about transport and, in particular, the road and rail network in my constituency.
My constituency contains a length of road stretching from Honiton to Exeter, a dual carriageway opened by the Deputy Prime Minister in August last year. It has a big problem, which causes my constituents great distress: it has a concrete finish. During its construction, both the

Government and the Highways Agency promised me that something called "whisper concrete" would be used. Nothing could be further from the truth: the noise from the road means that people living in quite a wide catchment area cannot sit in their gardens in the summer, and must keep their windows closed when they are indoors. Following noise-level tests, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Exeter Express and Echo—which conducted the tests—and Exeter university have accepted that the noise on the road is above the permissible level.
On 8 July this year, the Prime Minister arrived in Exeter and was immediately greeted by requests from the local populace and the local newspaper to pledge to do something about the noisy road; and he did. He was attending Labour's national policy forum at Exeter university, and the Home Secretary sped to join him, with great alacrity. At that meeting, under great local pressure to say something about the matter, he promised that the road would be resurfaced with a tarmac finish.
Since then I have raised the issue on several occasions. My constituents have written many letters, both to Ministers and to the Highways Agency. However, we still await a date for the resurfacing of the road. We did not expect the work to be done immediately, but given the promises I have received from Ministers in both letters and written parliamentary answers—I was told that an announcement would be made in the autumn of this year, but, following the announcement of a 10-year plan for road building, there has still been no news—I must tell the Minister that the matter is becoming urgent in my constituency. A promise was delivered personally by the Prime Minister, and we expect it to be honoured. We now want to know the date of the resurfacing. If the Prime Minister had been encouraged to give an early response, it would be a very good Christmas present for my constituents.
I also want to talk about bypasses. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) mentioned the Kingskerswell bypass, but there is another bypass on the Devon list—the Crediton bypass, which I realise is below the Kingskerswell bypass.
In 1997, Devon county council said that a start would be made on the Crediton bypass in 2003–04. Because of the council's view that the Barnstaple bypass should be built first—for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend—Crediton has slipped down the list. This year's capital expenditure made no provision for more than one bypass.
We welcome the Government's new-found realisation that bypasses are not wicked horrible things, that those who live in rural areas need to travel in cars, and that when they travel in cars a bypass around a town such as Crediton is very helpful. Nevertheless, this is another matter that urgently needs attention. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge in saying that we should like it to be included in future planning, so that people and businesses in Crediton can have some hope that action will be taken in their lifetime rather than continually being shunted down the list.
During the coming general election campaign, the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers—and, I hope, the Minister who is present tonight—will visit the south-west of England. If they choose not to travel on our noisy roads or visit our rather congested towns, they may come by rail. We have a serious problem in that regard.


There are two railway bridges in my constituency, Stafford bridge and Cowley bridge—a piece of track on the main Great Western line to the east of Exeter and towards Tiverton Parkway station. That bridge keeps being swept away by the flooding of the River Exe.
We all know about the problems of flooding, which, in this instance, have become more apparent in the last two months. The line between Exeter and Tiverton Parkway has been closed for 22 days in the past two months because of bridges being swept away by the force of the torrent caused by the flooding of the Exe. It is a long-term problem. We are very concerned that there will now have to be a bidding process to fund a major study to determine how to overcome it.
It is the main rail route between Cornwall and London, and we really cannot have such long delays with people being bussed between stations because of an increasingly greater problem with flooding on railway bridges. I hope that the Minister will pass on to the relevant Ministers the concern of people in the west country about the situation on that particular piece of track.
We started today's debate with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who described his constituents' serious concern about planning permission for housing for people who have served sentences for serious offences. He described the anxiety that that is creating for his local people.
We heard next from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones), who rightly flagged up the importance of the city of Wolverhampton. Interestingly, she also raised the issue of urban forests—which one does not always automatically associate with Wolverhampton—based on her local knowledge of her constituency. May I also say that Opposition Members wish her well in whatever career she has chosen to follow after the next general election?
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) described the very disturbing case of Nichola Stevenson, who is missing from a hospital where she had been subject to a section order under the Mental Health Acts. We all hope and pray that there will be a happy outcome to the case. We also hope that wider lessons will be learned about people who are subject to section orders and in the care of hospitals.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) filled his stocking with several goodies. He packed manufacturing, energy, planning, policing and other local issues into his speech.
In his speech, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) also raised many issues, particularly transport issues concerning trains and buses that greatly concern his constituents. He demonstrated his great detailed knowledge of those problems in his constituency.
The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) raised the issues of staffing pressures in education and transport in his county.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made an interesting speech about the American election. His speech—reading between the lines—gave me great encouragement that some Labour Members are prepared to speak up for the current United Kingdom voting system and to flag up the danger of a politicised judiciary.

A politicised judiciary is a concern not only for the United States, but for the House and the United Kingdom. He made a very helpful speech in which he made some comparisons from which we can all draw lessons.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) again raised the issue of transport, this time in relation to the costs for those who live in rural areas and on very low incomes. He also raised the very important issue of beef exports and the extremely-good quality beef that Scotland can produce. In seeking to further the export of Scottish beef, he sought the Minister's reassurance that every effort will be made to ensure equity in BSE controls across the European Union. We are all concerned about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) deplored the dumbing down of Parliament, the House and particularly this Chamber, and the failure of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to be held to account in this Chamber. We have talked about that subject before. I am a relatively new member of the Modernisation Committee. Although I think that it is an appalling Committee, I assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to sit on it, grit my teeth and make the case that that Committee should not undermine the democratic right of hon. Members in this Chamber.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) yet again raised the issue, as he has on several occasions in recent weeks, of Ministers' failure to allow further debate and answer questions on the now very clear anomalies in planning and strategic control of the European army and its NATO interface. I know that he will persist. I hope that the Minister will grant his wish, as I am sure that he will not let the subject slip after Christmas, given its strategic importance to this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) gave some appalling examples of bungling bureaucracy. It seems appalling that young people taking their A-levels should be the victims of bureaucracy and the jobsworth mentality. I hope that the Minister has taken that on board.
The prize for the fullest stocking today must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). He had lots of goodies packed in, including asylum seekers, traffic wardens and cloning. At one point, I thought that he was going to suggest cloning traffic wardens, until I realised that that would be totally against his principles.
My hon. Friend ended with a rather serious, cautionary point about pets as presents at Christmas. I agree with the warning that he gave the House. I am very fond of animals, but anyone who has ever house trained a puppy will know that Christmas week is not the week for it. One has to go to bed late, get up early, and arm oneself with lots of newspaper. It is not something to be done at the same time as stuffing the Christmas turkey. My hon. Friend was wise to warn the House of the problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge spoke about the Kingskerswell bypass. My constituency is also in Devon, and I am well aware of his assiduity in making that case, to which I have already referred in the general context of bypasses in the county.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) mentioned Dibden bay. I have visited his constituency on several occasions. Regardless of the main subject about which one speaks to my hon. Friend's


constituents, all the questions afterwards are about Dibden bay. I am glad that he is so well up to speed on that subject that I can always defer to him when I am in his constituency and allow him to answer the probing questions that arise on what is happening in Dibden bay. As he demonstrated this afternoon, he will not let the matter drop. He is representing his constituents in a matter that I know concerns them greatly.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): We have had in the debate, 14 speakers, who have raised many matters that are very important to them and to their constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) put it, hon. Members have a duty to raise such matters in the House.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) asked for more revolting MPs, who put grit in the machine, as he put it. My eye immediately strayed to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) who is a well known member of the awkward squad.
I also heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) said. I think that she is getting discharge happy. She made it clear that she would make her mark in the remainder of this Parliament if things did not go her way.
A number of hon. Members asked me to pass messages in different ways. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) asked me to have a word with at least 10 Ministers. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) asked me to get the relevant Minister to write to him about the local bypass. I can promise the letter straight away, but not the bypass. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) asked me to convey the message about Dibden bay in the strongest terms to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and I shall do so.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made an important speech about complaints and how we deal with them. I take a great interest in complaints. When people get things wrong they should acknowledge as much, apologise, and look at policy issues resulting from them. People should not be afraid to use a complaint to look at wider issues as a way of resolving matters. I do not think that we handle complaints well. We can do better, and we must improve public services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting spoke about constituency issues. He is already in touch with the relevant Minister of State about two points that he raised. Clearly, local residents want reassurance and information about the hostel that my hon. Friend spoke about, and they need to be involved in the process. He also mentioned a planning issue that centres on the green in his constituency. I shall take up those issues, and make sure that he gets a reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke about the greening of the cities, and urban forestry. That is an important matter. We must improve townscapes and landscapes, and planting trees is one way to do that. I was interested in what she said about the urban forestry unit, and I shall pursue the matter on her behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire spoke about the problems at Chesterfield hospital. I share his concerns about Nichola Stevenson. Like him, I hope for the best and try not to fear the worst.
My hon. Friend also talked about environmental issues. It is important that we turn coalfields into green fields. I know that his area has suffered many job losses in mining and textiles, and there is now the Biwater closure. I congratulate him on his strong campaign on this. He has won many friends in Derbyshire as a result, and the task must now be to bring new investment, new jobs and a new future to the area. I hope that we can put together the package that he seeks to ensure that that happens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) also talked about greenfield and planning issues. I am pleased that the south-west regional plan is now out and that we are aspiring to a brownfield target of 50 per cent. I believe that we should focus on market towns for integrated transport and jobs. It is important to create the right kind of houses—small ones, not big, executive, ranch-style ones.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also talked about the police, as did the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). In Gloucestershire, there is a rural police grant. In the Metropolitan police area, there are plans to recruit 2,000 extra police officers, and, of course, bringing back the housing allowance will be a big bonus in the London area.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) raised many points, one of which was about hospitals and nurses. I am pleased that we have been able to pay the wage claim in full, that it is above the rate of inflation and that the number of nurses coming back into the NHS is increasing. We need to do the same kind of thing with teachers, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) said. It is important that there are good salary structures and that we also raise morale and praise the best. We should not always criticise teachers but should thank them for the work that they do on our behalf. One way in which to help them is to cut down on their paperwork. I think that he knows that the Department for Education and Employment is monitoring the problem and reducing paperwork.
Transport has been a big issue—bypasses are back in vogue. I was pleased to be in Leicestershire just last week to announce that a bypass would open. We will have to look at the situation in Devon. I am pleased to say that the 10-year transport plan, with £180 billion attached to it over a period of time, gives us the opportunity not just to build roads but to look at public transport and invest in the long term.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was right to say that there were particular problems in rural areas. I had not really focused on his point about how that affects people on income support, but I will pick that issue up as it is important. We have done something like that with the new deal, giving extra support for transport costs for people on the new deal.
On planning, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) mentioned Dibden bay. I hear his opposition; planning issues need to be considered on their merit. I had better not say too much about it, but there are clear environmental problems and concerns not only at Dibden bay but at Shell Haven.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mentioned the United States. The lesson for me from that election is that every vote counts. I shall be putting out a leaflet with Mr. Gore's picture on it saying "Every vote counts".
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster asked for reassurance about the European defence initiative. I have not had the benefit of the textual analysis, but I reinforce the Prime Minister's point that we see the European army as complementary to NATO, and not a rival.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Question, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put, pursuant to Order [19 December].

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object

HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That—
the Lords Message [12th July] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and
the following Standing Order be made:

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
(2) The Committee shall consider—

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);
(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

(3) The Committee shall report to the House—

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.


(4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or
(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order: or
(c) that the order should not be approved,

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.
(5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.
(6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(7) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.


As an Amendment to Margaret Beckett's Motion (Human Rights (Joint Committee)):
Mr. Paul Tyler
Line 47, at end add—
'(8) It shall be an Instruction to the Committee that it shall elect its chairman from among those members of the Committee who are members of opposition parties.'.—[Mr. McNulty]

Hon. Members: Object.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Motion made,
That Jean Corston, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), Sir Patrick Cormack and Mr. Robert Maclennan be Members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

Shopworkers

Angela Smith: As this is almost the last business before Christmas, it seems appropriate that the petition of my constituents in Basildon and East Thurrock has a seasonal flavour.
The Petition states:
The Humble Petition of shopworkers of the United Kingdom and others of like disposition.
Sheweth
That Christmas Day is a special day all for especially families, and is under attack from the ever-increasing desire of retailers to open their shops for trading. That at present there are no means available to stop shopworkers being forced to work on Christmas Day, unless it happens to fall on a Sunday. That the Christmas and New Year period is the busiest of the year and that shopworkers deserve at least one day of rest during that time.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to introduce a statutory protection of Christmas Day, which will stop shops of over 280 square metres from opening and ensure that not one shopworker is forced to work on Christmas Day. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
To lie upon the Table.

Flooding (Robertsbridge)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle): I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I begin by wishing you and our colleagues a very happy Christmas. I extend that wish to House of Commons staff—including the Doorkeepers, who have advised me not to take too long over this debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the plight of Robertsbridge in my constituency, where more than 70 homes have been flooded several times over the past year. Some of those houses have been under water on no fewer than six occasions since last Christmas.
The House has already held a number of debates on the problems of flooding, which affected so many parts of England and has devastated whole communities in Sussex. Today, I want to focus specifically on the difficulties and challenges facing the village of Robertsbridge.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food replied helpfully to the earlier debates, and listened sympathetically in the Lobby when my Sussex colleagues and I canvassed his support. I know that he and his officials, as well as the Environment Agency and other participating authorities, are determined to help. Today, I hope to concentrate the hon. Gentleman's mind on the speed with which action needs to be taken, and on the extent of financial assistance that is required, if practical solutions are to be implemented without delay.
I am mindful that the timing of the debate is a mixed blessing for the Minister and his team of officials in the Box, as it is late on the last day before the Christmas recess. However, I know that he will appreciate that the more than 200 Robertsbridge residents who joined me at a public meeting on Monday last week will welcome this early chance for me to express the feelings that they put across, fairly forcefully, at that meeting.
There is an added bonus for the Minister in that his reply will be the last speech in the Commons this year—just as mine is the last speech from the Back Benches. Furthermore, by my calculation, this is the last parliamentary debate of the millennium; as we count from one to 10, not zero to nine, I reckon that December 2000 brings the second millennium to a close.
The public meeting in Robertsbridge on Monday 11 December, which I have already mentioned, turned into what can euphemistically be described as a full and frank exchange of views between aggrieved Robertsbridge residents and officials of the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency, East Sussex county council and Rother district council.
Quite understandably, the villagers wanted immediate action to minimise the risk of repeating the nightmare of flooded homes. Local residents know the streams, ditches, drains, gulleys and culverts, and the whole flood plain, better than even expert outsiders can possibly do. Most speakers at the meeting had lived in Robertsbridge for years. They saw the bypass built over the flood plain; they saw the old Kent and East Sussex steam railway


embankment demolished; they have seen new houses built on the flood plain, in defiance of local advice, adding to the problems of water run off. They know their territory.
The local Robertsbridge people were frankly impatient with officials for their no doubt painstaking explanations of where the flood water flowed from. To the flood victims, water in their kitchen or living room, rising step by step upstairs, is nasty, dirty water that ruins their carpets, floors, walls, cooker and so on—not to mention their sense of personal security and privacy.
Everything that belongs to the victims is ruined—as the people of Robertsbridge have repeatedly found out. The prospect of a contested insurance claim—for those who have been able to afford insurance—or, worse still, the fear of growing debt, and the disruption of the family life that people called their own, behind their front door, is devastating.
The residents hotly contested the Environment Agency's version—that the nearby Darwell reservoir was full and thus added to the floods—because Southern Water has told the local Salehurst parish council that the local reservoir was in fact only 52 per cent. full on the night of the great October flood.
There was little comfort for the villagers in Dr. Buckley's thoroughly well meant assurance that she had told the Minister—in my opinion, she was right to do so—that Robertsbridge was the worst hit community on her watch, which covers not only Kent but a large stretch of the Sussex weald that includes the Robertsbridge catchment area. They lost patience with the scrupulous, but in the event perhaps tactless, attempt by officials to explain the priority rankings that had eliminated Robertsbridge's planned capital improvements for the stream behind Northbridge street and Rutley close in 1997. They did not want to know about the engineering consultants' review of what is, for Robertsbridge, a stark and obvious fact: that the culverts under the bypass are too small to allow floodwater to flow away as freely as it should. That was demonstrated by the fact that water levels on the village side of the bypass were 4 ft higher than on the other side, downstream of the bypass.
Many local people dispute the official view that the Rother is no longer tidal as far upstream as Robertsbridge.
Local villagers want officials to dispense with studies and reviews. Instead, they want money spent now, as a matter of absolute priority, to speed up maintenance projects and capital works and to enlarge the culverts under the bypass.
Residents of Rutley close and other home owners are demanding compensation from the Highways Agency, with which I have a meeting after Christmas on that subject, or from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, because they are convinced that the bypass has exacerbated the floods and rendered their homes unsaleable.
The Environment Agency was under some pressure for not having its final report and analysis to present to the public meeting 10 days ago, but in all fairness the agency arranged the meeting before Christmas, with only its preliminary findings available, because I had very strongly urged its representatives to meet local residents at the earliest opportunity, and they were trying to be helpful.
Since the meeting, Dr. Buckley and her colleagues have submitted a helpful draft memorandum defining the up-to-date position. I commend the agency's willingness to help, but it can no longer be in any doubt about the anxieties and growing impatience felt in Robertsbridge.
Today I want to go a stage further and list for the Minister the practical demands that I hope he will be able to meet, to help Robertsbridge. First and foremost, we need, as a priority a reassessment of the effect of the bypass across the I Rother flood plain, where it acts as a dam wall, holding back water. We want larger culverts under that stretch of the bypass, and we need them as soon as is practicable.
Secondly, we want the Government to consider whether some houses in Robertsbridge have been made unsaleable because the bypass caused worse flooding than would have occurred had it not been constructed there, and to address demands for compensation.
Thirdly, we want the storm drain that runs down Silver hill—which, unbelievably, fed the flooded village with yet more water from the surrounding higher ground—to be diverted on to the other side of the flood plain.
Fourthly, we want implementation of the plans to clear the stream bed under Northbridge street, to construct a flood defence wall there, and partially to divert the channel. Those works were mooted in 1994 and 1995 and put to the present Government in 1997, but they were rejected—for lack of funding, I understand—and not given sufficient priority.
Fifthly, it is essential that the flood plain outside the village is cleared of any surplus soil, spread after the demolition of the old steam railway embankment some years ago.
Sixthly, it is not only the culverts that need de-silting. The ditches and stream channels also require attention, to remove brambles, secondary growth and other obstacles that impede the normal water flow. This work is under way, but it needs to be completed without interruption. I am pleased to say that, perhaps prompted by the public meeting and the announcement of this Adjournment debate, it is under way fairly busily. I hope that it will continue without interruption.
Seventhly, I should like to repeat the request that I made in the House to the Deputy Prime Minister when he made a statement on the flooding—with the Minister who is present today sitting beside him. My request then was to expedite the maximum assistance under the Bellwin guidelines. As the Minister knows, East Sussex county council has applied initially for £6.35 million. However, the council needs £3.3 million for road repairs as a result of flood damage in the county, and that is a preliminary estimate. The figure might rise to £5 million or even more.
Eighthly, I hope that the Minister will keep in mind Rother district council's call for co-ordination among all the relevant agencies and authorities to ensure that repairs and improvements are delivered against a tight timetable. In that context, I hope that Salehurst parish council will have a useful and important liaison role in Robertsbridge.
Ninthly, I support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) in his recent Adjournment debate on flooding that council tax rebates would help householders whose homes have been affected by flooding. The Minister addressed that problem when it was raised the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for Lewes.
Tenthly, as a practical precaution for the rest of this winter and to provide reassurance to householders, further supplies of sandbags need to be stocked locally given the possibility of yet more floods.
No one disputes that the weather is beyond our control, nor that the emergency services and local volunteers have done wonders in Robertsbridge and elsewhere during the floods. The Environment Agency, the Highways Agency and local authorities are committed to do what they can to help. Inexplicably, the flood defence committee has rejected the Environment Agency's request for higher-level funding in area. Again that was flagged up during the recent Adjournment debate on floods in Lewes. Ownership of the problem and the remedies lie with the Minister and the floods taskforce that he leads. Like him, I have in the past chaired a Cabinet Sub-Committee tasked with specific objectives. May I suggest that it is up to him to impress upon the Treasury that £50 million of extra funding will not be nearly enough to mend and improve the national flood defence infrastructure.
In East Sussex alone at least £55 million is needed, compared with the £3.2 million that East Sussex county council contributes annually to flood defence projects. Its mammoth task lies ahead, and it needs co-ordination, funding and the sense of purpose that I am sure the Minister is determined to provide. It is up to him to cut through the reviews, the red tape and the bureaucratic procedures to get the work done. I hope that he will succeed, and I wish him well in that important role.
I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to meet me early in the new year for further discussions. I hope that he will let me bring representatives from Robertsbridge to the meeting. It would be even better if he were to find time in his busy schedule to visit the village himself in the new year. I can assure him that the efforts being made in East Sussex cut across party political lines in a united effort. With the Minister's help, we can put Robertsbridge back on its feet—on dry land.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on raising this issue. I should like to put on record my sympathy for his constituents, especially those who have experienced repeat flooding. I have read a detailed report about the situation, and understand residents' concerns, especially those of people who have been flooded more than once.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, mine is the last contribution of the year, and I add my season's best wishes to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the staff who are here for the bitter end of the debate. Residents' concerns are a priority, and I have no objection to being here this evening to discuss flooding and to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I shall try to respond to the points made, and see what I can do to assist.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the weather in October was wholly exceptional. The records of flooding in Robertsbridge show that the highest-ever flood levels were reached. Residents have a point about flood plain development. Again, looking back on the area's history, it is fair to say that there has been some questionable development. I understand that some of the houses affected were flooded during their construction. That calls

into question the original planning permission and whether building them in that place was appropriate. Of course, that is no consolation to the people who live there, but we have to consider the problem as we find it.
I understand that a disused railway embankment was removed at about the same time as the bypass was built. The Environment Agency, or its predecessor organisation, the National Rivers Authority, was not consulted about that at the time. Generally speaking, I understand that the culverts under the bypass are large enough to cope with normal flood flows. However, the culverts could not cope with the flows that occurred in October. The agency will have to re-examine the issue and it will have to discuss it with the Highways Agency.
The hon. Gentleman outlined a comprehensive range of perfectly reasonable points. I understand that a Rother strategy study has been established to consider all the issues that he raised. They have to be considered overall in terms of the most appropriate scheme.
The original scheme considered was not progressed, not because of lack of funding but because it did not meet the priority score. Technical and environmental assessments have to be made and a cost-benefit analysis carried out. If a scheme costs a great deal more than what it is defending against, it will come down the priority score.
It might reassure the hon. Gentleman, however, to learn that, as a result of the October flooding, the Government have raised the scoring for urban river defence schemes. They receive a higher score, and the fact that we have made more money available also means that the threshold score has been lowered from 23 to 20 points. I do not know whether that will help the scheme in the hon. Gentleman's area, but it will not be unhelpful. I shall be very interested to learn the details of the scheme when it is introduced by the Environment Agency.
The original scheme that was proposed was designed to a one-in-50 years standard. Even if it had been built, it would have been overwhelmed by the October floods. The water levels were so high that even that scheme would not have worked. That is another reason why there has to be a re-evaluation in Robertsbridge; we must find the right way forward.
The hon. Gentleman also made several points about local authorities. I am aware of them, and I have written to every chief executive of local councils in flood-hit areas. I also attended a constructive meeting of the local-central partnership in which central Government meet the Local Government Association. Many of the points about local authorities, the workings of the Bellwin scheme, flood defence programmes, investment strategies and fundraising were all mentioned and discussions are on-going. We take those points seriously and we shall respond to them.
Local authorities are responsible for the supply of sandbags, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman's council about the matter. If the Environment Agency has spare capacity, it is always willing to help out locally, but I must emphasise that it is responsible for the defences, not individual householders, who are the responsibility of the local authority.
One can dispute the figure of £51 million; nevertheless, it is £51 million on top of an increasing budget of £30 million over the next three years. The £51 million is capital grant aid, so it levers out about £70 million, which is a considerable sum. I have heard it said that £55 million


is needed for flood defences in the hon. Gentleman's area, but I have never seen a breakdown of that figure, so I cannot say whether it is accurate. However, I can say that the Government do not dispute the need for more investment in flood and coastal defences. We are investing more, and we will continue to review the situation, in consultation with local people.
I am very willing to meet the hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to bring some of his constituents to represent the residents, I should be only too pleased to meet them too. I certainly have no objection to visiting the area. The only difficulty is that recent events mean that I have spent an

awful lot of time in different places around the country, and there are many demands on my diary. However, I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind. I can assure him that if he would like to bring a delegation, I should be only too pleased to receive it, and we can talk about the issues in greater detail.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Perhaps it is appropriate that the occupant of the Chair should have the very last word, so I, in turn, wish all hon. Members a happy Christmas and extend that wish to all the members of the House of Commons who serve us so well throughout the year.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock.